Cited by 56Hemodynamic Monitoring and TherapySepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentUltrasound in Clinical Applications

Machine learning methods to improve bedside fluid responsiveness prediction in severe sepsis or septic shock: An observational study

Open access
Bataille, Benoît, de Selle, Jade, Moussot, Pierre-Etienne, Marty, Philippe, Silva, Stein, Cocquet, Pierre·2021·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

Background Passive leg raising (PLR) predicts fluid responsiveness in critical illness, although restrictions in mobilising patients often preclude this haemodynamic challenge being used. We investigated whether machine learning applied on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) data might be used as a tool for predicting fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients.Methods We studied, 100 critically ill patients (mean age: 62 yr [standard deviation: 14]) with severe sepsis or septic shock prospectively over 24 months. Transthoracic echocardiography measurements were performed at baseline, after PLR, and before and after a standardised fluid challenge in learning and test populations (n=50 patients each). A 15% increase in stroke volume defined fluid responsiveness. The machine learning methods used were classification and regression tree (CART), partial least-squares regression (PLS), neural network (NNET), and linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Each method was applied offline to determine whether fluid responsiveness may be predicted from left and right cardiac ventricular physiological changes detected by cardiac ultrasound. Predictive values for fluid responsiveness were compared by receiver operating characteristics (area under the curve [AUC]; mean [95% confidence intervals]).Results In the learning sample, the AUC values were PLR 0.76 (0.62-0.89), CART 0.83 (0.73-0.94), PLS 0.97 (0.93-1), NNET 0.93 (0.85-1), and LDA 0.90 (0.81-0.98). In the test sample, the AUC values were PLR 0.77 (0.64-0.91), CART 0.68 (0.54-0.81), PLS 0.83 (0.71-0.96), NNET 0.83 (0.71-0.94), and LDA 0.85 (0.74-0.96) respectively. The PLS model identified inferior vena cava collapsibility, velocity-time integral, S-wave, E/Ea ratio, and E-wave as key echocardiographic parameters.Conclusions Machine learning generated several models for predicting fluid responsiveness that were comparable with the haemodynamic response to PLR.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bja.2020.11.039

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bataille et al. found that machine learning models (particularly partial least-squares and neural networks) demonstrated strong predictive performance (test AUROC ~0.83-0.85) for fluid responsiveness, comparable to passive leg raising.

    “Machine learning models—particularly partial least-squares and neural networks—demonstrated strong predictive performance (test AUROC ~0.83–0.85), comparable to passive leg raising.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bataille, B., de Selle, J., Moussot, P.-E., Marty, P., Silva, S., & Cocquet, P.
Affiliations
  • Médipole Garonne (FR)
  • Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (FR)
Corresponding author
Bataille, Benoît
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
126
Issue
4
Pages
826-834
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3120666205
Cited by
56
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3
FWCI
5.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
Keywords
fluid responsiveness, septic shock, severe sepsis, passive leg raising, transthoracic echocardiography, machine learning, partial least squares regression, classification and regression trees, artificial neural networks, linear discriminant analysis, inferior vena cava collapsibility, stroke volume, fluid challenge, echocardiography
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Aged, Echocardiography, Female, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Shock, Septic, Critical Illness, Sepsis, Point-of-Care Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review