Machine learning for predicting mortality in adult critically ill patients with Sepsis: A systematic review

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
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 ,&nbsp;Swetha Reddy ,&nbsp;Hong Hieu Truong ,&nbsp;Mariam Charkviani ,&nbsp;Jacob Ninan ,&nbsp;Larry J. Prokop ,&nbsp;Supawadee Suppadungsuk ,&nbsp;Waryaam Singh ,&nbsp;Kianoush B. Kashani ,&nbsp;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.

预测败血症成人重症患者死亡率的机器学习:系统综述。
简介:各种机器学习(ML)模型已被用于预测脓毒症相关死亡率。我们进行了一项系统性综述,以评估预测脓毒症患者死亡率的研究中所采用的方法:按照在国际系统综述前瞻性注册中心(International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews)注册的预设方案,我们对从开始到 2024 年 2 月的数据库进行了全面检索。结果:在 1822 篇文章中,有 31 篇是关于脓毒症成人重症患者死亡率预测的:在 1822 篇文章中,有 31 篇被纳入,涉及 1477200 名脓毒症成人患者。有 19 项研究存在高偏倚风险。在各种 ML 模型中,逻辑回归(Logistic regression)和梯度提升(eXtreme Gradient Boosting)是最常用的模型,分别在 22 项和 16 项研究中使用。有 9 项研究进行了内部和外部验证。与 SOFA 等传统评分系统相比,ML 模型在预测死亡率方面的表现略高(AUROC 范围:0.62-0.90 vs. 0.47-0.86):结论:ML 模型在预测脓毒症相关死亡率方面略有改善。结论:ML 模型在预测脓毒症相关死亡率方面有一定的改善,但由于偏倚风险较高且存在显著的异质性,这些研究结果的确定性仍然较低。研究应包括有关校准和超参数选择的全面方法细节,采用脓毒症的标准化定义,并进行多中心前瞻性设计和外部验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of critical care
Journal of critical care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
2.70%
发文量
237
审稿时长
23 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信