Predicting multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in trauma-induced sepsis: Nomogram and machine learning approaches

Jinyu Peng , Yun Li , Chao Liu , Zhi Mao , Hongjun Kang , Feihu Zhou
{"title":"Predicting multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in trauma-induced sepsis: Nomogram and machine learning approaches","authors":"Jinyu Peng ,&nbsp;Yun Li ,&nbsp;Chao Liu ,&nbsp;Zhi Mao ,&nbsp;Hongjun Kang ,&nbsp;Feihu Zhou","doi":"10.1016/j.jointm.2024.12.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) is a critical complication in trauma-induced sepsis patients and is associated with a high mortality rate. This study aimed to develop and validate predictive models for MODS in this patient population using a nomogram and machine learning approaches.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV 2.2 database, focusing on trauma patients diagnosed with sepsis within the first day of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Predictive variables were extracted from the initial 24 h of ICU data. The dataset (2008–2019) was divided into a training set (2008–2016) and a temporal validation set (2017–2019). Feature selection was conducted using the Boruta algorithm. Predictive models were developed and validated using a nomogram and various machine learning techniques. Model performance was evaluated based on discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 1295 trauma patients with sepsis, 349 (26.95%) developed MODS. The 28-day mortality rates were 11.21% for non-MODS patients and 23.82% for MODS patients. Key predictors of MODS included the simplified acute physiology score II score, use of mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor administration. In temporal validation, all models significantly outperformed traditional scoring systems (all <em>P</em> &lt;0.05). The nomogram achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.757 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.700 to 0.814), while the random forest model demonstrated the highest performance with an AUC of 0.769 (95% CI: 0.712 to 0.826). Calibration plots showed excellent agreement between predicted and observed probabilities, and decision curve analysis indicated a consistently higher net benefit for the newly developed models.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The nomogram and machine learning models provide enhanced predictive accuracy for MODS in trauma-induced sepsis patients compared to traditional scoring systems. These tools, accessible via web-based applications, have the potential to improve early risk stratification and guide clinical decision-making, ultimately enhancing outcomes for trauma patients. Further external validation is recommended to confirm their generalizability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73799,"journal":{"name":"Journal of intensive medicine","volume":"5 2","pages":"Pages 193-201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of intensive medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667100X25000027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) is a critical complication in trauma-induced sepsis patients and is associated with a high mortality rate. This study aimed to develop and validate predictive models for MODS in this patient population using a nomogram and machine learning approaches.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV 2.2 database, focusing on trauma patients diagnosed with sepsis within the first day of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Predictive variables were extracted from the initial 24 h of ICU data. The dataset (2008–2019) was divided into a training set (2008–2016) and a temporal validation set (2017–2019). Feature selection was conducted using the Boruta algorithm. Predictive models were developed and validated using a nomogram and various machine learning techniques. Model performance was evaluated based on discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis.

Results

Among 1295 trauma patients with sepsis, 349 (26.95%) developed MODS. The 28-day mortality rates were 11.21% for non-MODS patients and 23.82% for MODS patients. Key predictors of MODS included the simplified acute physiology score II score, use of mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor administration. In temporal validation, all models significantly outperformed traditional scoring systems (all P <0.05). The nomogram achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.757 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.700 to 0.814), while the random forest model demonstrated the highest performance with an AUC of 0.769 (95% CI: 0.712 to 0.826). Calibration plots showed excellent agreement between predicted and observed probabilities, and decision curve analysis indicated a consistently higher net benefit for the newly developed models.

Conclusion

The nomogram and machine learning models provide enhanced predictive accuracy for MODS in trauma-induced sepsis patients compared to traditional scoring systems. These tools, accessible via web-based applications, have the potential to improve early risk stratification and guide clinical decision-making, ultimately enhancing outcomes for trauma patients. Further external validation is recommended to confirm their generalizability.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of intensive medicine
Journal of intensive medicine Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
58 days
×
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