Machine learning in data abstraction: A computable phenotype for sepsis and septic shock diagnosis in the intensive care unit

Prabij Dhungana, Laura Piccolo Serafim, Arnaldo Lopez Ruiz, Danette Bruns, Timothy J. Weister, Nathan Jerome Smichney, Rahul Kashyap

World Journal of Critical Care Medicine · 2019 · 13 citations · 10 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

Abstract

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.

References

10