World Journal of Critical Care Medicine · 2019 · 13 citations · 10 references
MedicineBiomedical InformaticsHealth InformaticsCritical Care MedicineMachine LearningSepsisClinical Recognition Of SepsisIntensive Care MedicineSepsis DiagnosisSepsis ManagementSeptic ShockSupervised Phenotype ClassificationAcute Organ FailureComputable PhenotypesElectronic Medical RecordsIntensive Care Unit Sepsis DetectionMachine Learning DiagnosticsMachine Learning For DiagnosisSepsis In Intensive CareSepsis Phenotypes
BACKGROUND: With the recent change in the definition (Sepsis-3 Definition) of sepsis and septic shock, an electronic search algorithm was required to identify the cases for data automation. This supervised machine learning method would help screen a large amount of electronic medical records (EMR) for efficient research purposes. AIM: To develop and validate a computable phenotype via supervised machine learning method for retrospectively identifying sepsis and septic shock in critical care patients. METHODS: A supervised machine learning method was developed based on culture orders, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, serum lactate levels and vasopressor use in the intensive care units (ICUs). The computable phenotype was derived from a retrospective analysis of a random cohort of 100 patients admitted to the medical ICU. This was then validated in an independent cohort of 100 patients. We compared the results from computable phenotype to a gold standard by manual review of EMR by 2 blinded reviewers. Disagreement was resolved by a critical care clinician. A SOFA score ≥ 2 during the ICU stay with a culture 72 h before or after the time of admission was identified. Sepsis versions as V1 was defined as blood cultures with SOFA ≥ 2 and Sepsis V2 was defined as any culture with SOFA score ≥ 2. A serum lactate level ≥ 2 mmol/L from 24 h before admission till their stay in the ICU and vasopressor use with Sepsis-1 and-2 were identified as Septic Shock-V1 and-V2 respectively. RESULTS: = 0.86 and 0.90 for Sepsis 2 and Septic shock 2 respectively. In validation of the algorithm through a separate 100 random patient subset, the reported sensitivity and specificity for all 4 diagnoses were 100%-100% each. CONCLUSION: Supervised machine learning for identification of sepsis and septic shock is reliable and an efficient alternative to manual chart review.
10
Hospital Deaths in Patients With Sepsis From 2 Independent Cohorts
Vincent Liu, Gabriel J. Escobar, J Greene et al. · JAMA · 2014 · 1K citations
Veterinary Medicine, Internal Medicine, Epidemiologic Methods +16
Matthew M. Churpek, Frank J. Zadravecz, Christopher Winslow et al. · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2015 · 366 citations
Veterinary Medicine, Clinical Sciences, Critical Care Medicine +16
Balwinder Singh, Amandeep Singh, Adil Ahmed et al. · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · 2012 · 209 citations · Full text