Subtle variation in sepsis-III definitions markedly influences predictive performance within and across methods

Author:

Cohen Samuel N.ORCID,Foster JamesORCID,Foster PeterORCID,Lou HangORCID,Lyons TerryORCID,Morley SamORCID,Morrill JamesORCID,Ni HaoORCID,Palmer EdwardORCID,Wang BoORCID,Wu YueORCID,Yang LingyiORCID,Yang WeixinORCID

Abstract

AbstractEarly detection of sepsis is key to ensure timely clinical intervention. Since very few end-to-end pipelines are publicly available, fair comparisons between methodologies are difficult if not impossible. Progress is further limited by discrepancies in the reconstruction of sepsis onset time. This retrospective cohort study highlights the variation in performance of predictive models under three subtly different interpretations of sepsis onset from the sepsis-III definition and compares this against inter-model differences. The models are chosen to cover tree-based, deep learning, and survival analysis methods. Using the MIMIC-III database, between 867 and 2178 intensive care unit admissions with sepsis were identified, depending on the onset definition. We show that model performance can be more sensitive to differences in the definition of sepsis onset than to the model itself. Given a fixed sepsis definition, the best performing method had a gain of 1–5% in the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). However, the choice of onset time can cause a greater effect, with variation of 0–6% in AUROC. We illustrate that misleading conclusions can be drawn if models are compared without consideration of the sepsis definition used which emphasizes the need for a standardized definition for sepsis onset.

Funder

Alan Turing Institute

EPSRC

UK Goverment

University College London and the China Scholarship Council

the Data Centric Engineering Programme

UK Government

the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

NIHR clinical lectureship

Clarendon Fund

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Multidisciplinary

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3