Cargando…

Diagnostic suspicion bias and machine learning: Breaking the awareness deadlock for sepsis detection

Many early warning algorithms are downstream of clinical evaluation and diagnostic testing, which means that they may not be useful when clinicians fail to suspect illness and fail to order appropriate tests. Depending on how such algorithms handle missing data, they could even indicate “low risk” s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prasad, Varesh, Aydemir, Baturay, Kehoe, Iain E., Kotturesh, Chaya, O’Connell, Abigail, Biebelberg, Brett, Wang, Yang, Lynch, James C., Pepino, Jeremy A., Filbin, Michael R., Heldt, Thomas, Reisner, Andrew T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10619833/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37910497
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000365
_version_ 1785130075354562560
author Prasad, Varesh
Aydemir, Baturay
Kehoe, Iain E.
Kotturesh, Chaya
O’Connell, Abigail
Biebelberg, Brett
Wang, Yang
Lynch, James C.
Pepino, Jeremy A.
Filbin, Michael R.
Heldt, Thomas
Reisner, Andrew T.
author_facet Prasad, Varesh
Aydemir, Baturay
Kehoe, Iain E.
Kotturesh, Chaya
O’Connell, Abigail
Biebelberg, Brett
Wang, Yang
Lynch, James C.
Pepino, Jeremy A.
Filbin, Michael R.
Heldt, Thomas
Reisner, Andrew T.
author_sort Prasad, Varesh
collection PubMed
description Many early warning algorithms are downstream of clinical evaluation and diagnostic testing, which means that they may not be useful when clinicians fail to suspect illness and fail to order appropriate tests. Depending on how such algorithms handle missing data, they could even indicate “low risk” simply because the testing data were never ordered. We considered predictive methodologies to identify sepsis at triage, before diagnostic tests are ordered, in a busy Emergency Department (ED). One algorithm used “bland clinical data” (data available at triage for nearly every patient). The second algorithm added three yes/no questions to be answered after the triage interview. Retrospectively, we studied adult patients from a single ED between 2014–16, separated into training (70%) and testing (30%) cohorts, and a final validation cohort of patients from four EDs between 2016–2018. Sepsis was defined per the Rhee criteria. Investigational predictors were demographics and triage vital signs (downloaded from the hospital EMR); past medical history; and the auxiliary queries (answered by chart reviewers who were blinded to all data except the triage note and initial HPI). We developed L2-regularized logistic regression models using a greedy forward feature selection. There were 1164, 499, and 784 patients in the training, testing, and validation cohorts, respectively. The bland clinical data model yielded ROC AUC’s 0.78 (0.76–0.81) and 0.77 (0.73–0.81), for training and testing, respectively, and ranged from 0.74–0.79 in four hospital validation. The second model which included auxiliary queries yielded 0.84 (0.82–0.87) and 0.83 (0.79–0.86), and ranged from 0.78–0.83 in four hospital validation. The first algorithm did not require clinician input but yielded middling performance. The second showed a trend towards superior performance, though required additional user effort. These methods are alternatives to predictive algorithms downstream of clinical evaluation and diagnostic testing. For hospital early warning algorithms, consideration should be given to bias and usability of various methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10619833
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106198332023-11-02 Diagnostic suspicion bias and machine learning: Breaking the awareness deadlock for sepsis detection Prasad, Varesh Aydemir, Baturay Kehoe, Iain E. Kotturesh, Chaya O’Connell, Abigail Biebelberg, Brett Wang, Yang Lynch, James C. Pepino, Jeremy A. Filbin, Michael R. Heldt, Thomas Reisner, Andrew T. PLOS Digit Health Research Article Many early warning algorithms are downstream of clinical evaluation and diagnostic testing, which means that they may not be useful when clinicians fail to suspect illness and fail to order appropriate tests. Depending on how such algorithms handle missing data, they could even indicate “low risk” simply because the testing data were never ordered. We considered predictive methodologies to identify sepsis at triage, before diagnostic tests are ordered, in a busy Emergency Department (ED). One algorithm used “bland clinical data” (data available at triage for nearly every patient). The second algorithm added three yes/no questions to be answered after the triage interview. Retrospectively, we studied adult patients from a single ED between 2014–16, separated into training (70%) and testing (30%) cohorts, and a final validation cohort of patients from four EDs between 2016–2018. Sepsis was defined per the Rhee criteria. Investigational predictors were demographics and triage vital signs (downloaded from the hospital EMR); past medical history; and the auxiliary queries (answered by chart reviewers who were blinded to all data except the triage note and initial HPI). We developed L2-regularized logistic regression models using a greedy forward feature selection. There were 1164, 499, and 784 patients in the training, testing, and validation cohorts, respectively. The bland clinical data model yielded ROC AUC’s 0.78 (0.76–0.81) and 0.77 (0.73–0.81), for training and testing, respectively, and ranged from 0.74–0.79 in four hospital validation. The second model which included auxiliary queries yielded 0.84 (0.82–0.87) and 0.83 (0.79–0.86), and ranged from 0.78–0.83 in four hospital validation. The first algorithm did not require clinician input but yielded middling performance. The second showed a trend towards superior performance, though required additional user effort. These methods are alternatives to predictive algorithms downstream of clinical evaluation and diagnostic testing. For hospital early warning algorithms, consideration should be given to bias and usability of various methods. Public Library of Science 2023-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10619833/ /pubmed/37910497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000365 Text en © 2023 Prasad et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Prasad, Varesh
Aydemir, Baturay
Kehoe, Iain E.
Kotturesh, Chaya
O’Connell, Abigail
Biebelberg, Brett
Wang, Yang
Lynch, James C.
Pepino, Jeremy A.
Filbin, Michael R.
Heldt, Thomas
Reisner, Andrew T.
Diagnostic suspicion bias and machine learning: Breaking the awareness deadlock for sepsis detection
title Diagnostic suspicion bias and machine learning: Breaking the awareness deadlock for sepsis detection
title_full Diagnostic suspicion bias and machine learning: Breaking the awareness deadlock for sepsis detection
title_fullStr Diagnostic suspicion bias and machine learning: Breaking the awareness deadlock for sepsis detection
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic suspicion bias and machine learning: Breaking the awareness deadlock for sepsis detection
title_short Diagnostic suspicion bias and machine learning: Breaking the awareness deadlock for sepsis detection
title_sort diagnostic suspicion bias and machine learning: breaking the awareness deadlock for sepsis detection
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10619833/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37910497
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000365
work_keys_str_mv AT prasadvaresh diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT aydemirbaturay diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT kehoeiaine diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT kottureshchaya diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT oconnellabigail diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT biebelbergbrett diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT wangyang diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT lynchjamesc diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT pepinojeremya diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT filbinmichaelr diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT heldtthomas diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection
AT reisnerandrewt diagnosticsuspicionbiasandmachinelearningbreakingtheawarenessdeadlockforsepsisdetection