Predicting sepsis with a recurrent neural network using the MIMIC III database
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Numerous models were tested on the freely accessible MIMIC database.
“numerous models were tested on the freely accessible MIMIC database [27, 33, 52–59]”
From Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (2020) · cites this paper as [59]
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
- green
- nbn-resolving.org
- Licence
- 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