IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0245157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis

Author

Listed:
  • William P T M van Doorn
  • Patricia M Stassen
  • Hella F Borggreve
  • Maaike J Schalkwijk
  • Judith Stoffers
  • Otto Bekers
  • Steven J R Meex

Abstract

Introduction: Patients with sepsis who present to an emergency department (ED) have highly variable underlying disease severity, and can be categorized from low to high risk. Development of a risk stratification tool for these patients is important for appropriate triage and early treatment. The aim of this study was to develop machine learning models predicting 31-day mortality in patients presenting to the ED with sepsis and to compare these to internal medicine physicians and clinical risk scores. Methods: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted amongst 1,344 emergency department patients fulfilling sepsis criteria. Laboratory and clinical data that was available in the first two hours of presentation from these patients were randomly partitioned into a development (n = 1,244) and validation dataset (n = 100). Machine learning models were trained and evaluated on the development dataset and compared to internal medicine physicians and risk scores in the independent validation dataset. The primary outcome was 31-day mortality. Results: A number of 1,344 patients were included of whom 174 (13.0%) died. Machine learning models trained with laboratory or a combination of laboratory + clinical data achieved an area-under-the ROC curve of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.80–0.84) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81–0.87) for predicting 31-day mortality, respectively. In the validation set, models outperformed internal medicine physicians and clinical risk scores in sensitivity (92% vs. 72% vs. 78%;p 0.02). The model had higher diagnostic accuracy with an area-under-the-ROC curve of 0.85 (95%CI: 0.78–0.92) compared to abbMEDS (0.63,0.54–0.73), mREMS (0.63,0.54–0.72) and internal medicine physicians (0.74,0.65–0.82). Conclusion: Machine learning models outperformed internal medicine physicians and clinical risk scores in predicting 31-day mortality. These models are a promising tool to aid in risk stratification of patients presenting to the ED with sepsis.

Suggested Citation

  • William P T M van Doorn & Patricia M Stassen & Hella F Borggreve & Maaike J Schalkwijk & Judith Stoffers & Otto Bekers & Steven J R Meex, 2021. "A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245157
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245157
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245157
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245157&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0245157?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.