194 Machine learning for early prediction of sepsis from electronic health records: a preliminary validation study at GOSH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are being leveraged to build Machine Learning (ML) models to help tackle the growing burden of neonatal sepsis. Regrettably, obstacles in external validation hinder their seamless integration into clinical care. We seek to explore the transferability of ML methods in diverse specialist clinical settings. Specifically, we aim to test the robustness to external validation of both the models and the methodologies published by Masino et al. (2019), using the original data from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and comparable data from Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH).Methods We extracted ICU EHR data and employed transformation techniques to derive clinical features, ensuring dataset comparability. Following the computational framework established by Masino et al. (2019), we developed ML classifiers aimed at early sepsis prediction. We evaluated the influence of EHR data differences by analysing feature compatibility, data heterogeneity, and availability. Learning curve analysis was employed to explore overfitting within both datasets.Results We obtained the following preliminary results; the tested models reproduced the strong discriminatory power seen in the CHOP training dataset (AUC: 0.85 for Logistic Regression) but demonstrated a decline in predictive performance during external validation on GOSH data (AUC: 0.47 for Logistic Regression). Retraining on GOSH data improved performance (AUC: 0.71 for Logistic Regression), with statistically significant differences from initial validation results.Conclusion Disparities in EHR data signals between the GOSH and CHOP cohorts, including differences in baseline distributions, data availability, and biases from data imputation, largely explained these results. The classifiers learnt CHOP cohort-specific patterns, complicating deployment at GOSH. To combat overfitting in specialist hospitals with smaller datasets, simpler and more interpretable models may be more effective. We emphasise the importance of validation frameworks to build robust and reliable models capable of consistent performance amidst different data landscapes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".