Abstract
Background Sepsis is among the leading causes of death in intensive care units (ICU) world-wide and its recognition, particularly in the early stages of the disease, remains a medical challenge. The advent of an affluence of available digital health data has created a setting in which machine learning can be used for digital biomarker discovery, with the ultimate goal to advance the early recognition of sepsis.
Objective To systematically review and evaluate studies employing machine learning for the prediction of sepsis in the ICU.
Data sources Using Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science, we systematically searched the existing literature for machine learning-driven sepsis onset prediction for patients in the ICU.
Study eligibility criteria All peer-reviewed articles using machine learning for the prediction of sepsis onset in adult ICU patients were included. Studies focusing on patient populations outside the ICU were excluded.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Moreover, a quality assessment of all eligible studies was performed.
Results Out of 974 identified articles, 22 and 21 met the criteria to be included in the systematic review and quality assessment, respectively. A multitude of machine learning algorithms were applied to refine the early prediction of sepsis. The quality of the studies ranged from “poor” (satisfying ≤ 40% of the quality criteria) to “very good” (satisfying ≥ 90% of the quality criteria). The majority of the studies (n = 19, 86.4%) employed an offline training scenario combined with a horizon evaluation, while two studies implemented an online scenario (n = 2, 9.1%). The massive inter-study heterogeneity in terms of model development, sepsis definition, prediction time windows, and outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. Last, only 2 studies provided publicly-accessible source code and data sources fostering reproducibility.
Limitations Articles were only eligible for inclusion when employing machine learning algorithms for the prediction of sepsis onset in the ICU. This restriction led to the exclusion of studies focusing on the prediction of septic shock, sepsis-related mortality, and patient populations outside the ICU.
Conclusions and key findings A growing number of studies employs machine learning to optimise the early prediction of sepsis through digital biomarker discovery. This review, however, highlights several shortcomings of the current approaches, including low comparability and reproducibility. Finally, we gather recommendations how these challenges can be addressed before deploying these models in prospective analyses.
Systematic review registration number CRD42020200133
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project was supported by the Strategic Focal Area "Personalized Health and Related Technologies (PHRT)" of the ETH Domain for the SPHN/PHRT Driver Project 'Personalized Swiss Sepsis Study' (Borgwardt, #2017-110) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (Ambizione Grant, PZ00P3-186101, Jutzeler). The funders had no role in study design, data collection andanalysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
NA
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
firstname.lastname{at}bsse.ethz.ch
Data Availability
We make all used study data available.