Cited by 244Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentMachine Learning in HealthcareAcute Kidney Injury Research

A computational approach to early sepsis detection

Open access
Calvert, Jacob S., Price, Daniel A., Chettipally, Uli K., Barton, Christopher W., Feldman, Mitchell D., Hoffman, Jana L., Jay, Melissa, Das, Ritankar·2016·Computers in Biology and Medicine

Abstract

Objective To develop high-performance early sepsis prediction technology for the general patient population. Methods Retrospective analysis of adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (from the MIMIC II dataset) who were not septic at the time of admission. Results A sepsis early warning algorithm, InSight, was developed and applied to the prediction of sepsis up to three hours prior to a patient's first five hour Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) episode. When applied to a never-before-seen set of test patients, InSight predictions demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.89-0.91) and a specificity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.80-0.82), exceeding or rivaling that of existing biomarker detection methods. Across predictive times up to three hours before a sustained SIRS event, InSight maintained an average area under the ROC curve of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86). Analysis of patient sepsis risk showed that contributions from the coevolution of multiple risk factors were more important than the contributions from isolated individual risk factors when making predictions further in advance. Conclusions Sepsis can be predicted at least three hours in advance of onset of the first five hour SIRS episode, using only nine commonly available vital signs, with better performance than methods in standard practice today. High-order correlations of vital sign measurements are key to this prediction, which improves the likelihood of early identification of at-risk patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.05.003

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Calvert, J. S., Price, D. A., Chettipally, U. K., Barton, C. W., Feldman, M. D., Hoffman, J. L., Jay, M., & Das, R.
Affiliations
  • Dascena (United States) (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Hoffman, Jana L.
Venue
Computers in Biology and Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-07
Volume
74
Pages
69-73
ISSN
0010-4825 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2372800617
Cited by
244
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 6
FWCI
21.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Biology and Medicine (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1549867)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
Keywords
sepsis prediction, early sepsis detection, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, vital signs, intensive care unit patients, higher-order correlations, insight
MeSH terms
Adult, Critical Care, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Male, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Biomarkers, Sepsis

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