Automated Calculation of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score in the Intensive Care Unit: Algorithm Development, Validation, and Association With 30-Day Mortality.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Johan Helleberg, Anna Sundelin, Navid Soltani, Ragnar Thobaben, Johan Mårtensson, Olav Rooyackers
{"title":"Automated Calculation of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score in the Intensive Care Unit: Algorithm Development, Validation, and Association With 30-Day Mortality.","authors":"Johan Helleberg, Anna Sundelin, Navid Soltani, Ragnar Thobaben, Johan Mårtensson, Olav Rooyackers","doi":"10.1111/aas.70205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is routinely used in the intensive care unit (ICU) to describe severity of organ dysfunction, for prognostication and sepsis diagnosis, and in clinical trials. Inter-rater variability and scalability are known challenges in manual assessment. We aimed to develop and validate an algorithm for automatic SOFA calculation and evaluated its predictive abilities on 30-day mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective multi-center cohort study on all adult patients admitted to four ICUs at the Karolinska University Hospitals in 2015-2018. Data from 2018 collected in one ICU was used for algorithm development. The algorithm was validated by comparing the results of automated SOFA score calculation to those obtained by manual SOFA scoring by experienced intensivists on 300 randomly chosen ICU days from the remaining cohort. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC [95% confidence interval (CI)]) was calculated as primary validation outcome. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC [95% CI]) was used for assessment of 30-day mortality prediction on the remaining cohort (excluding only the development cohort).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6953 ICU admissions were included. The algorithm was developed on 613 admissions during 2018. Data from the remaining cohort with 6340 admissions (5076 patients, 36,625 ICU days) were used for mortality prediction. On algorithm validation of the full SOFA score, the ICC was 0.99 (0.98-1.00). For 30-day mortality, the best predictive abilities were found with maximum SOFA score (AUROC 0.79 [0.78-0.81]) and with SOFA score on Day 2 (AUROC 0.79 [0.77-0.80]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A trustworthy automated SOFA score dataset can be produced with comprehensive high-frequency electronic health records curation and rigorous artifact control, with accuracy comparable to manual scoring by senior intensivists. Association between SOFA score and 30-day mortality in a large, real-world clinical cohort aligns with findings from previous clinical trials. The results support the use of automated SOFA scoring as a reliable tool for clinical research, quality monitoring, and potentially real-time clinical decision support.</p><p><strong>Editorial comment: </strong>In this article, the authors report results of a retrospective multicenter study, where they used a large cohort of adult ICU patients for developing and validating an automated algorithm for calculating SOFA scores. In validation, they found that the automatically calculated score was comparable to scores manually calculated by experienced clinicians. The automatically calculated maximum SOFA and Day 2 SOFA scores performed well in predicting 30-day mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":"70 3","pages":"e70205"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12907534/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70205","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is routinely used in the intensive care unit (ICU) to describe severity of organ dysfunction, for prognostication and sepsis diagnosis, and in clinical trials. Inter-rater variability and scalability are known challenges in manual assessment. We aimed to develop and validate an algorithm for automatic SOFA calculation and evaluated its predictive abilities on 30-day mortality.

Methods: Retrospective multi-center cohort study on all adult patients admitted to four ICUs at the Karolinska University Hospitals in 2015-2018. Data from 2018 collected in one ICU was used for algorithm development. The algorithm was validated by comparing the results of automated SOFA score calculation to those obtained by manual SOFA scoring by experienced intensivists on 300 randomly chosen ICU days from the remaining cohort. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC [95% confidence interval (CI)]) was calculated as primary validation outcome. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC [95% CI]) was used for assessment of 30-day mortality prediction on the remaining cohort (excluding only the development cohort).

Results: A total of 6953 ICU admissions were included. The algorithm was developed on 613 admissions during 2018. Data from the remaining cohort with 6340 admissions (5076 patients, 36,625 ICU days) were used for mortality prediction. On algorithm validation of the full SOFA score, the ICC was 0.99 (0.98-1.00). For 30-day mortality, the best predictive abilities were found with maximum SOFA score (AUROC 0.79 [0.78-0.81]) and with SOFA score on Day 2 (AUROC 0.79 [0.77-0.80]).

Conclusion: A trustworthy automated SOFA score dataset can be produced with comprehensive high-frequency electronic health records curation and rigorous artifact control, with accuracy comparable to manual scoring by senior intensivists. Association between SOFA score and 30-day mortality in a large, real-world clinical cohort aligns with findings from previous clinical trials. The results support the use of automated SOFA scoring as a reliable tool for clinical research, quality monitoring, and potentially real-time clinical decision support.

Editorial comment: In this article, the authors report results of a retrospective multicenter study, where they used a large cohort of adult ICU patients for developing and validating an automated algorithm for calculating SOFA scores. In validation, they found that the automatically calculated score was comparable to scores manually calculated by experienced clinicians. The automatically calculated maximum SOFA and Day 2 SOFA scores performed well in predicting 30-day mortality.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

重症监护病房顺序器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分的自动计算:算法开发、验证和与30天死亡率的关联
背景:序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分在重症监护病房(ICU)常规用于描述器官功能障碍的严重程度,用于预后和败血症诊断,以及临床试验。在人工评估中,等级间的可变性和可伸缩性是已知的挑战。我们的目的是开发和验证一种自动SOFA计算算法,并评估其对30天死亡率的预测能力。方法:对2015-2018年卡罗林斯卡大学附属医院4个icu收治的所有成年患者进行回顾性多中心队列研究。2018年在一个ICU收集的数据用于算法开发。通过比较自动SOFA评分计算结果与经验丰富的重症医师在剩余队列中随机选择的300天的手动SOFA评分结果,验证了该算法。计算类内相关系数(ICC[95%置信区间(CI)])作为主要验证结果。使用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC [95% CI])评估剩余队列(仅不包括发展队列)的30天死亡率预测。结果:共纳入ICU住院患者6953例。该算法是在2018年的613次招生中开发的。来自其余队列的6340例入院患者(5076例,36,625 ICU天数)的数据用于死亡率预测。在SOFA满分的算法验证中,ICC为0.99(0.98-1.00)。对于30天死亡率,最高SOFA评分(AUROC为0.79[0.78-0.81])和第2天SOFA评分(AUROC为0.79[0.77-0.80])的预测能力最好。结论:通过全面的高频电子健康记录管理和严格的人工控制,可以生成一个值得信赖的自动化SOFA评分数据集,其准确性可与高级重症医师手动评分相媲美。在现实世界的大型临床队列中,SOFA评分与30天死亡率之间的关联与先前临床试验的结果一致。结果支持使用自动SOFA评分作为临床研究、质量监测和潜在的实时临床决策支持的可靠工具。编者按:在这篇文章中,作者报告了一项回顾性多中心研究的结果,在这项研究中,他们使用了一大批成年ICU患者来开发和验证一种计算SOFA评分的自动算法。在验证中,他们发现自动计算的分数与经验丰富的临床医生手动计算的分数相当。自动计算的最大SOFA和第2天SOFA评分在预测30天死亡率方面表现良好。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书