MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406503228 · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2025-gosh.105

194 Machine learning for early prediction of sepsis from electronic health records: a preliminary validation study at GOSH

2025· article· en· W4406503228 on OpenAlexaff
Stella Champeaux, Stuart A Bowyer, John Booth, Daniel Key, Neil J. Sebire

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSepsisHealth recordsComputer scienceMedicineHealth careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207