Brann Felix, Sterling Nicholas William, Frisch Stephanie O, Schrager Justin D
Vital Software, Inc, Claymont, DE, United States.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, United States.
JMIR AI. 2024 Jan 25;3:e49784. doi: 10.2196/49784.
Despite its high lethality, sepsis can be difficult to detect on initial presentation to the emergency department (ED). Machine learning-based tools may provide avenues for earlier detection and lifesaving intervention.
The study aimed to predict sepsis at the time of ED triage using natural language processing of nursing triage notes and available clinical data.
We constructed a retrospective cohort of all 1,234,434 consecutive ED encounters in 2015-2021 from 4 separate clinically heterogeneous academically affiliated EDs. After exclusion criteria were applied, the final cohort included 1,059,386 adult ED encounters. The primary outcome criteria for sepsis were presumed severe infection and acute organ dysfunction. After vectorization and dimensional reduction of triage notes and clinical data available at triage, a decision tree-based ensemble (time-of-triage) model was trained to predict sepsis using the training subset (n=950,921). A separate (comprehensive) model was trained using these data and laboratory data, as it became available at 1-hour intervals, after triage. Model performances were evaluated using the test (n=108,465) subset.
Sepsis occurred in 35,318 encounters (incidence 3.45%). For sepsis prediction at the time of patient triage, using the primary definition, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and macro F-score for sepsis were 0.94 and 0.61, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and false positive rate were 0.87, 0.85, and 0.15, respectively. The time-of-triage model accurately predicted sepsis in 76% (1635/2150) of sepsis cases where sepsis screening was not initiated at triage and 97.5% (1630/1671) of cases where sepsis screening was initiated at triage. Positive and negative predictive values were 0.18 and 0.99, respectively. For sepsis prediction using laboratory data available each hour after ED arrival, the AUC peaked to 0.97 at 12 hours. Similar results were obtained when stratifying by hospital and when Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hospital toolkit for adult sepsis surveillance criteria were used to define sepsis. Among septic cases, sepsis was predicted in 36.1% (1375/3814), 49.9% (1902/3814), and 68.3% (2604/3814) of encounters, respectively, at 3, 2, and 1 hours prior to the first intravenous antibiotic order or where antibiotics where not ordered within the first 12 hours.
Sepsis can accurately be predicted at ED presentation using nursing triage notes and clinical information available at the time of triage. This indicates that machine learning can facilitate timely and reliable alerting for intervention. Free-text data can improve the performance of predictive modeling at the time of triage and throughout the ED course.
尽管脓毒症具有很高的致死率,但在初次就诊于急诊科(ED)时可能难以检测出来。基于机器学习的工具可能为早期检测和挽救生命的干预提供途径。
本研究旨在通过对护理分诊记录和可用临床数据进行自然语言处理,在急诊科分诊时预测脓毒症。
我们构建了一个回顾性队列,纳入了2015年至2021年期间来自4个不同临床特征的学术附属急诊科的1,234,434例连续的急诊就诊病例。应用排除标准后,最终队列包括1,059,386例成人急诊就诊病例。脓毒症的主要结局标准为疑似严重感染和急性器官功能障碍。在对分诊记录和分诊时可用的临床数据进行向量化和降维后,使用训练子集(n = 950,921)训练基于决策树的集成(分诊时)模型来预测脓毒症。使用这些数据和分诊后每隔1小时获取的实验室数据训练一个单独的(综合)模型。使用测试子集(n = 108,465)评估模型性能。
35,318例就诊病例发生了脓毒症(发病率3.45%)。对于患者分诊时的脓毒症预测,使用主要定义,脓毒症的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)和宏F分数分别为0.94和0.61。敏感性、特异性和假阳性率分别为0.87、0.85和0.15。分诊时模型在分诊时未启动脓毒症筛查的脓毒症病例中准确预测了76%(1635/2150),在分诊时启动脓毒症筛查的病例中准确预测了97.5%(1630/1671)。阳性和阴性预测值分别为0.18和0.99。对于使用急诊到达后每小时可用的实验室数据进行脓毒症预测,AUC在12小时时达到峰值0.97。按医院分层以及使用疾病控制和预防中心成人脓毒症监测标准定义脓毒症时,也获得了类似结果。在脓毒症病例中,分别在首次静脉使用抗生素医嘱前3小时、2小时和1小时或在最初12小时内未使用抗生素的情况下,预测到脓毒症的就诊病例分别为36.1%(1375/3814)、49.9%(1902/3814)和68.3%(2604/3814)。
使用护理分诊记录和分诊时可用的临床信息可以在急诊就诊时准确预测脓毒症。这表明机器学习可以促进及时且可靠的干预警报。自由文本数据可以提高分诊时以及整个急诊过程中预测模型的性能。