Nasrin Nikravangolsefid , Swetha Reddy , Hong Hieu Truong , Mariam Charkviani , Jacob Ninan , Larry J. Prokop , Supawadee Suppadungsuk , Waryaam Singh , Kianoush B. Kashani , Juan Pablo Domecq Garces
{"title":"Machine learning for predicting mortality in adult critically ill patients with Sepsis: A systematic review","authors":"Nasrin Nikravangolsefid , Swetha Reddy , Hong Hieu Truong , Mariam Charkviani , Jacob Ninan , Larry J. Prokop , Supawadee Suppadungsuk , Waryaam Singh , Kianoush B. Kashani , Juan Pablo Domecq Garces","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrc.2024.154889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Introduction: Various Machine Learning (ML) models have been used to predict sepsis-associated mortality. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the methodologies employed in studies to predict mortality among patients with sepsis.</p><p>Methods: Following a pre-established protocol registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, we performed a comprehensive search of databases from inception to February 2024. We included peer-reviewed articles reporting predicting mortality in critically ill adult patients with sepsis.</p><p>Results: Among the 1822 articles, 31 were included, involving 1,477,200 adult patients with sepsis. Nineteen studies had a high risk of bias. Among the diverse ML models, Logistic regression and eXtreme Gradient Boosting were the most frequently used, in 22 and 16 studies, respectively. Nine studies performed internal and external validation. Compared with conventional scoring systems such as SOFA, the ML models showed slightly higher performance in predicting mortality (AUROC ranges: 0.62–0.90 vs. 0.47–0.86).</p><p>Conclusions: ML models demonstrate a modest improvement in predicting sepsis-associated mortality. The certainty of these findings remains low due to the high risk of bias and significant heterogeneity. Studies should include comprehensive methodological details on calibration and hyperparameter selection, adopt a standardized definition of sepsis, and conduct multicenter prospective designs along with external validations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of critical care","volume":"84 ","pages":"Article 154889"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of critical care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883944124003769","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Various Machine Learning (ML) models have been used to predict sepsis-associated mortality. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the methodologies employed in studies to predict mortality among patients with sepsis.
Methods: Following a pre-established protocol registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, we performed a comprehensive search of databases from inception to February 2024. We included peer-reviewed articles reporting predicting mortality in critically ill adult patients with sepsis.
Results: Among the 1822 articles, 31 were included, involving 1,477,200 adult patients with sepsis. Nineteen studies had a high risk of bias. Among the diverse ML models, Logistic regression and eXtreme Gradient Boosting were the most frequently used, in 22 and 16 studies, respectively. Nine studies performed internal and external validation. Compared with conventional scoring systems such as SOFA, the ML models showed slightly higher performance in predicting mortality (AUROC ranges: 0.62–0.90 vs. 0.47–0.86).
Conclusions: ML models demonstrate a modest improvement in predicting sepsis-associated mortality. The certainty of these findings remains low due to the high risk of bias and significant heterogeneity. Studies should include comprehensive methodological details on calibration and hyperparameter selection, adopt a standardized definition of sepsis, and conduct multicenter prospective designs along with external validations.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Critical Care, the official publication of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine (WFSICCM), is a leading international, peer-reviewed journal providing original research, review articles, tutorials, and invited articles for physicians and allied health professionals involved in treating the critically ill. The Journal aims to improve patient care by furthering understanding of health systems research and its integration into clinical practice.
The Journal will include articles which discuss:
All aspects of health services research in critical care
System based practice in anesthesiology, perioperative and critical care medicine
The interface between anesthesiology, critical care medicine and pain
Integrating intraoperative management in preparation for postoperative critical care management and recovery
Optimizing patient management, i.e., exploring the interface between evidence-based principles or clinical insight into management and care of complex patients
The team approach in the OR and ICU
System-based research
Medical ethics
Technology in medicine
Seminars discussing current, state of the art, and sometimes controversial topics in anesthesiology, critical care medicine, and professional education
Residency Education.