MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408655855 · doi:10.1186/s40635-025-00744-w

Unsupervised clustering for sepsis identification in large-scale patient data: a model development and validation study

2025· article· en· W4408655855 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Na Li, Kiarash Riazi, Jie Pan, Kednapa Thavorn, Jennifer Ziegler, Bram Rochwerg, Hude Quan, Hallie C. Prescott, Peter Dodek, Bing Li, Alain Gervais, Allan Garland

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine Experimental · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaUniversité de SherbrookeSt. Paul's HospitalAlberta Health ServicesMcMaster UniversityImpactUniversity of CalgaryAlberta HealthCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversity of ManitobaOttawa Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth Sciences Centre Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCluster analysisCohortData miningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a major global health problem. However, it lacks a true reference standard for case identification, complicating epidemiologic surveillance. Consensus definitions have changed multiple times, clinicians struggle to identify sepsis at the bedside, and differing identification algorithms generate wide variation in incidence rates. The two current identification approaches use codes from administrative data, or electronic health record (EHR)-based algorithms such as the Center for Disease Control Adult Sepsis Event (ASE); both have limitations. Here our primary purpose is to report initial steps in developing a novel approach to identifying sepsis using unsupervised clustering methods. Secondarily, we report preliminary analysis of resulting clusters, using identification by ASE criteria as a familiar comparator. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used hospital administrative and EHR data on adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at five Canadian medical centres (2015-2017), with split development and validation cohorts. After preprocessing 592 variables (demographics, encounter characteristics, diagnoses, medications, laboratory tests, and clinical management) and applying data reduction, we presented 55 principal components to eight different clustering algorithms. An automated elbow method determined the optimal number of clusters, and the optimal algorithm was selected based on clustering metrics for consistency, separation, distribution and stability. Cluster membership in the validation cohort was assigned using an XGBoost model trained to predict cluster membership in the development cohort. For cluster analysis, we prospectively subdivided clusters by their fractions meeting ASE criteria (≥ 50% ASE-majority clusters vs. ASE-minority clusters), and compared their characteristics. RESULTS: There were 3660 patients in the development cohort and 3012 in the validation cohort, of which 21.5% (development) and 19.1% (validation) were ASE (+). The Robust and Sparse K-means Clustering (RSKC) method performed best. In the development cohort, it identified 48 clusters of hospitalizations; 11 ASE-majority clusters contained 22.4% of all patients but 77.8% of all ASE (+) patients. 34.9% of the 209 ASE (-) patients in the ASE-majority clusters met more liberal ASE criteria for sepsis. Findings were consistent in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised clustering applied to diverse, large-scale medical data offers a promising approach to the identification of sepsis phenotypes for epidemiological surveillance.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care Medicine ExperimentalSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207