Cargando…
A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis
INTRODUCTION: Patients with sepsis who present to an emergency department (ED) have highly variable underlying disease severity, and can be categorized from low to high risk. Development of a risk stratification tool for these patients is important for appropriate triage and early treatment. The aim...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7815112/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33465096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245157 |
_version_ | 1783638171265794048 |
---|---|
author | van Doorn, William P. T. M. Stassen, Patricia M. Borggreve, Hella F. Schalkwijk, Maaike J. Stoffers, Judith Bekers, Otto Meex, Steven J. R. |
author_facet | van Doorn, William P. T. M. Stassen, Patricia M. Borggreve, Hella F. Schalkwijk, Maaike J. Stoffers, Judith Bekers, Otto Meex, Steven J. R. |
author_sort | van Doorn, William P. T. M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Patients with sepsis who present to an emergency department (ED) have highly variable underlying disease severity, and can be categorized from low to high risk. Development of a risk stratification tool for these patients is important for appropriate triage and early treatment. The aim of this study was to develop machine learning models predicting 31-day mortality in patients presenting to the ED with sepsis and to compare these to internal medicine physicians and clinical risk scores. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted amongst 1,344 emergency department patients fulfilling sepsis criteria. Laboratory and clinical data that was available in the first two hours of presentation from these patients were randomly partitioned into a development (n = 1,244) and validation dataset (n = 100). Machine learning models were trained and evaluated on the development dataset and compared to internal medicine physicians and risk scores in the independent validation dataset. The primary outcome was 31-day mortality. RESULTS: A number of 1,344 patients were included of whom 174 (13.0%) died. Machine learning models trained with laboratory or a combination of laboratory + clinical data achieved an area-under-the ROC curve of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.80–0.84) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81–0.87) for predicting 31-day mortality, respectively. In the validation set, models outperformed internal medicine physicians and clinical risk scores in sensitivity (92% vs. 72% vs. 78%;p<0.001,all comparisons) while retaining comparable specificity (78% vs. 74% vs. 72%;p>0.02). The model had higher diagnostic accuracy with an area-under-the-ROC curve of 0.85 (95%CI: 0.78–0.92) compared to abbMEDS (0.63,0.54–0.73), mREMS (0.63,0.54–0.72) and internal medicine physicians (0.74,0.65–0.82). CONCLUSION: Machine learning models outperformed internal medicine physicians and clinical risk scores in predicting 31-day mortality. These models are a promising tool to aid in risk stratification of patients presenting to the ED with sepsis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7815112 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78151122021-01-27 A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis van Doorn, William P. T. M. Stassen, Patricia M. Borggreve, Hella F. Schalkwijk, Maaike J. Stoffers, Judith Bekers, Otto Meex, Steven J. R. PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Patients with sepsis who present to an emergency department (ED) have highly variable underlying disease severity, and can be categorized from low to high risk. Development of a risk stratification tool for these patients is important for appropriate triage and early treatment. The aim of this study was to develop machine learning models predicting 31-day mortality in patients presenting to the ED with sepsis and to compare these to internal medicine physicians and clinical risk scores. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted amongst 1,344 emergency department patients fulfilling sepsis criteria. Laboratory and clinical data that was available in the first two hours of presentation from these patients were randomly partitioned into a development (n = 1,244) and validation dataset (n = 100). Machine learning models were trained and evaluated on the development dataset and compared to internal medicine physicians and risk scores in the independent validation dataset. The primary outcome was 31-day mortality. RESULTS: A number of 1,344 patients were included of whom 174 (13.0%) died. Machine learning models trained with laboratory or a combination of laboratory + clinical data achieved an area-under-the ROC curve of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.80–0.84) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81–0.87) for predicting 31-day mortality, respectively. In the validation set, models outperformed internal medicine physicians and clinical risk scores in sensitivity (92% vs. 72% vs. 78%;p<0.001,all comparisons) while retaining comparable specificity (78% vs. 74% vs. 72%;p>0.02). The model had higher diagnostic accuracy with an area-under-the-ROC curve of 0.85 (95%CI: 0.78–0.92) compared to abbMEDS (0.63,0.54–0.73), mREMS (0.63,0.54–0.72) and internal medicine physicians (0.74,0.65–0.82). CONCLUSION: Machine learning models outperformed internal medicine physicians and clinical risk scores in predicting 31-day mortality. These models are a promising tool to aid in risk stratification of patients presenting to the ED with sepsis. Public Library of Science 2021-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7815112/ /pubmed/33465096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245157 Text en © 2021 van Doorn et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://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 van Doorn, William P. T. M. Stassen, Patricia M. Borggreve, Hella F. Schalkwijk, Maaike J. Stoffers, Judith Bekers, Otto Meex, Steven J. R. A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis |
title | A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis |
title_full | A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis |
title_fullStr | A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis |
title_short | A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis |
title_sort | comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7815112/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33465096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245157 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vandoornwilliamptm acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT stassenpatriciam acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT borggrevehellaf acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT schalkwijkmaaikej acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT stoffersjudith acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT bekersotto acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT meexstevenjr acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT vandoornwilliamptm comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT stassenpatriciam comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT borggrevehellaf comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT schalkwijkmaaikej comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT stoffersjudith comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT bekersotto comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis AT meexstevenjr comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsversusclinicalevaluationformortalitypredictioninpatientswithsepsis |