Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

Abstract: Purpose: Early clinical recognition of sepsis can be challenging. With the advancement of machine learning, promising real-time models to predict sepsis have emerged. We assessed their performance by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase.com and Scopus. Studies targeting sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock in any hospital setting were eligible for inclusion. The index test was any supervised machine learning model for real-time prediction of these conditions. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, with a tailored Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist to evaluate risk of bias. Models with a reported area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) metric were meta-analyzed to identify strongest contributors to model performance. Results: After screening, a total of 28 papers were eligible for synthesis, from which 130 models were extracted. The majority of papers were developed in the intensive care unit (ICU, n = 15; 54%), followed by hospital wards (n = 7; 25%), the emergency department (ED, n = 4; 14%) and all of these settings (n = 2; 7%). For the prediction of sepsis, diagnostic test accuracy assessed by the AUROC ranged from 0.68–0.99 in the ICU, to 0.96–0.98 in-hospital and 0.87 to 0.97 in the ED. Varying sepsis definitions limit pooling of the performance across studies. Only three papers clinically implemented models with mixed results. In the multivariate analysis, temperature, lab values, and model type contributed most to model performance. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis show that on retrospective data, individual machine learning models can accurately predict sepsis onset ahead of time. Although they present alternatives to traditional scoring systems, between-study heterogeneity limits the assessment of pooled results. Systematic reporting and clinical implementation studies are needed to bridge the gap between bytes and bedside

Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

Abstract: Purpose: Early clinical recognition of sepsis can be challenging. With the advancement of machine learning, promising real-time models to predict sepsis have emerged. We assessed their performance by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase.com and Scopus. Studies targeting sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock in any hospital setting were eligible for inclusion. The index test was any supervised machine learning model for real-time prediction of these conditions. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, with a tailored Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist to evaluate risk of bias. Models with a reported area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) metric were meta-analyzed to identify strongest contributors to model performance. Results: After screening, a total of 28 papers were eligible for synthesis, from which 130 models were extracted. The majority of papers were developed in the intensive care unit (ICU, n = 15; 54%), followed by hospital wards (n = 7; 25%), the emergency department (ED, n = 4; 14%) and all of these settings (n = 2; 7%). For the prediction of sepsis, diagnostic test accuracy assessed by the AUROC ranged from 0.68–0.99 in the ICU, to 0.96–0.98 in-hospital and 0.87 to 0.97 in the ED. Varying sepsis definitions limit pooling of the performance across studies. Only three papers clinically implemented models with mixed results. In the multivariate analysis, temperature, lab values, and model type contributed most to model performance. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis show that on retrospective data, individual machine learning models can accurately predict sepsis onset ahead of time. Although they present alternatives to traditional scoring systems, between-study heterogeneity limits the assessment of pooled results. Systematic reporting and clinical implementation studies are needed to bridge the gap between bytes and bedside

Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

Abstract: Purpose: Early clinical recognition of sepsis can be challenging. With the advancement of machine learning, promising real-time models to predict sepsis have emerged. We assessed their performance by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase.com and Scopus. Studies targeting sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock in any hospital setting were eligible for inclusion. The index test was any supervised machine learning model for real-time prediction of these conditions. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, with a tailored Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist to evaluate risk of bias. Models with a reported area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) metric were meta-analyzed to identify strongest contributors to model performance. Results: After screening, a total of 28 papers were eligible for synthesis, from which 130 models were extracted. The majority of papers were developed in the intensive care unit (ICU, n = 15; 54%), followed by hospital wards (n = 7; 25%), the emergency department (ED, n = 4; 14%) and all of these settings (n = 2; 7%). For the prediction of sepsis, diagnostic test accuracy assessed by the AUROC ranged from 0.68–0.99 in the ICU, to 0.96–0.98 in-hospital and 0.87 to 0.97 in the ED. Varying sepsis definitions limit pooling of the performance across studies. Only three papers clinically implemented models with mixed results. In the multivariate analysis, temperature, lab values, and model type contributed most to model performance. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis show that on retrospective data, individual machine learning models can accurately predict sepsis onset ahead of time. Although they present alternatives to traditional scoring systems, between-study heterogeneity limits the assessment of pooled results. Systematic reporting and clinical implementation studies are needed to bridge the gap between bytes and bedside

Right Dose Right Now: Bedside data-driven personalized antibiotic dosing in severe sepsis and septic shock - Rationale and design of a multicenter randomized controlled superiority trial

Background: Antibiotic exposure is often inadequate in critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and this is associated with worse outcomes. Despite markedly altered and rapidly changing pharmacokinetics in these patients, guidelines and clinicians continue to rely on standard dosing schemes. To address this challenge, we developed AutoKinetics, a clinical decision support system for antibiotic dosing. By feeding large amounts of electronic health record patient data into pharmacokinetic models, patient-specific predicted future plasma concentrations are displayed graphically. In addition, a tailored dosing advice is provided at the bedside in real time. To evaluate the effect of AutoKinetics on pharmacometric and clinical endpoints, we are conducting the Right Dose Right Now multicenter, randomized controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, superiority trial. Methods: All adult intensive care patients with a suspected or proven infection and having either lactatemia or receiving vasopressor support are eligible for inclusion. Randomization to the AutoKinetics or control group is initiated at the bedside when prescribing at least one of four commonly administered antibiotics: ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, meropenem and vancomycin. Dosing advice is available for patients in the AutoKinetics group, whereas patients in the control group receive standard dosing. The primary outcome of the study is pharmacometric target attainment during the first 24 h. Power analysis revealed the need for inclusion of 42 patients per group per antibiotic. Thus, a total of 336 patients will be included, 168 in each group. Secondary pharmacometric endpoints include time to target attainment and fraction of target attainment during an entire antibiotic course. Secondary clinical endpoints include mortality, clinical cure and days free from organ support. Several other exploratory and subgroup analyses are planned. Discussion: This is the first randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and safety of bedside data-driven automated antibiotic dosing advice. This is important as adequate antibiotic exposure may be crucial to treat severe sepsis and septic shock. In addition, the trial could prove to be a significant contribution to clinical pharmacometrics and serve as a stepping stone for the use of big data and artificial intelligence in the field