Cited by 167Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Predicting sepsis with a recurrent neural network using the MIMIC III database

Open access
Scherpf, Matthieu, Gräßer, Felix, Malberg, Hagen, Zaunseder, Sebastian·2019·Computers in Biology and Medicine

Abstract

Objective Predicting sepsis onset with a recurrent neural network and performance comparison with InSight - a previously proposed algorithm for the prediction of sepsis onset. Methodology A retrospective analysis of adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (from the MIMIC III database) who did not fall under the definition of sepsis at the time of admission. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) measures the performance of the prediction task. We examine the sequence length given to the machine learning algorithms for different points in time before sepsis onset concerning the prediction performance. Additionally, the impact of sepsis onset's definition is investigated. We evaluate the model with a relatively large and thus more representative patient population compared to related works in the field. Results For a prediction 3 h prior to sepsis onset, our network achieves an AUROC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.84). The InSight algorithm achieves an AUROC of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69-0.75). For a fixed sensitivity of 90% our network reaches a specificity of 47.0% (95% CI: 43.1%-50.8%) compared to 31.1% (95% CI: 24.8%-37.5%) for InSight. In addition, we compare the performance for 6 and 12 h prediction time for both approaches. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that a recurrent neural network is superior to InSight considering the prediction performance. Most probably, the improvement results from the network's ability of revealing time dependencies. We s…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.103395

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 167

Authors
Scherpf, M., Gräßer, F., Malberg, H., & Zaunseder, S.
Affiliations
  • Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
  • Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts (DE)
Corresponding author
Scherpf, Matthieu
Venue
Computers in Biology and Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
113
Pages
103395
ISSN
0010-4825 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2969225972
Cited by
167
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
11.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Biology and Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
sepsis prediction, recurrent neural networks, MIMIC-III, intensive care unit patients, temporal prediction, early warning systems, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Databases, Factual, Neural Networks, Computer, 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