RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 E<span class="sc">arly</span> P<span class="sc">rediction of</span> S<span class="sc">epsis in the</span> ICU <span class="sc">using</span> M<span class="sc">achine</span> L<span class="sc">earning</span>: A S<span class="sc">ystematic</span> R<span class="sc">eview</span>
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.08.31.20185207
DO 10.1101/2020.08.31.20185207
A1 Michael Moor
A1 Bastian Rieck
A1 Max Horn
A1 Catherine R. Jutzeler
A1 Karsten Borgwardt
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/02/2020.08.31.20185207.abstract
AB 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 CRD42020200133Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis 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 DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:NAAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesWe make all used study data available. https://github.com/BorgwardtLab/sepsis-prediction-review