A framework and analytical exploration for a data-driven update of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in sepsis

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Drago Plečko PhD , Nicolas Bennett PhD , Ida-Fong Ukor MBBS , Niklas Rodemund MD , Ary Serpa-Neto MD, PhD , Peter Bühlmann PhD
{"title":"A framework and analytical exploration for a data-driven update of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in sepsis","authors":"Drago Plečko PhD ,&nbsp;Nicolas Bennett PhD ,&nbsp;Ida-Fong Ukor MBBS ,&nbsp;Niklas Rodemund MD ,&nbsp;Ary Serpa-Neto MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Peter Bühlmann PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ccrj.2025.100105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The Sepsis-3 consensus statement emphasised the need for data-based approaches to organ failure assessment and use the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) for this purpose. We aimed to develop a framework for a data-driven update to the SOFA score for patients with sepsis.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic analysis of potential markers of organ dysfunction in a retrospective, observational study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Intensive care units from three tertiary hospital centres in the United States, the Netherlands, and Austria were included in the study.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>28 100 American, 5339 Dutch, and 2450 Austrian patients with suspected sepsis were included in this study.</div></div><div><h3>Measurements and main results</h3><div>We assessed 56 organ function variables. We applied area under curve maximisation procedures to optimise the predictive power for mortality. We chose the most predictive biomarker for existing organ dysfunction domains and added a metabolic domain. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the precision recall curve of the data-driven approach against the current SOFA system. The novel approach outperformed the current SOFA in all domains and databases (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: for US patients: 0.766 vs. 0.727, mortality: 10.7%; for Dutch patients: 0.70 vs. 0.653, mortality: 22.0%; for Austrian patients: 0.704 vs. 0.665, mortality: 22.0%; all p &lt; 0.01 for the best performing score). The precision-recall curve confirmed such observations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We developed and validated a framework for a data-driven update to the SOFA to identify and classify organ dysfunction in suspected septic patients. This framework can be used to revise the SOFA score and its application to the identification and classification of sepsis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49215,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","volume":"27 1","pages":"Article 100105"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277225000092","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The Sepsis-3 consensus statement emphasised the need for data-based approaches to organ failure assessment and use the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) for this purpose. We aimed to develop a framework for a data-driven update to the SOFA score for patients with sepsis.

Design

Systematic analysis of potential markers of organ dysfunction in a retrospective, observational study.

Setting

Intensive care units from three tertiary hospital centres in the United States, the Netherlands, and Austria were included in the study.

Participants

28 100 American, 5339 Dutch, and 2450 Austrian patients with suspected sepsis were included in this study.

Measurements and main results

We assessed 56 organ function variables. We applied area under curve maximisation procedures to optimise the predictive power for mortality. We chose the most predictive biomarker for existing organ dysfunction domains and added a metabolic domain. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the precision recall curve of the data-driven approach against the current SOFA system. The novel approach outperformed the current SOFA in all domains and databases (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: for US patients: 0.766 vs. 0.727, mortality: 10.7%; for Dutch patients: 0.70 vs. 0.653, mortality: 22.0%; for Austrian patients: 0.704 vs. 0.665, mortality: 22.0%; all p < 0.01 for the best performing score). The precision-recall curve confirmed such observations.

Conclusions

We developed and validated a framework for a data-driven update to the SOFA to identify and classify organ dysfunction in suspected septic patients. This framework can be used to revise the SOFA score and its application to the identification and classification of sepsis.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Care and Resuscitation
Critical Care and Resuscitation CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
3.40%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ritical Care and Resuscitation (CC&R) is the official scientific journal of the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM). The Journal is a quarterly publication (ISSN 1441-2772) with original articles of scientific and clinical interest in the specialities of Critical Care, Intensive Care, Anaesthesia, Emergency Medicine and related disciplines. The Journal is received by all Fellows and trainees, along with an increasing number of subscribers from around the world. The CC&R Journal currently has an impact factor of 3.3, placing it in 8th position in world critical care journals and in first position in the world outside the USA and Europe.
×
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