Cited by 28Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentECG Monitoring and AnalysisMachine Learning in Healthcare

Deep-Learning Model for Screening Sepsis Using Electrocardiography

Open access
Kwon, Joon-myoung, Lee, Ye Rang, Jung, Min-Seung, Lee, Yoon-Ji, Jo, Yong-Yeon, Kang, Da-Young, Lee, Soo Youn, Cho, Yong-Hyeon +3 more·2021·Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Background: Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction and a major healthcare burden worldwide. Although sepsis is a medical emergency that requires immediate management, screening for the occurrence of sepsis is difficult. Herein, we propose a deep learning-based model (DLM) for screening sepsis using electrocardiography (ECG). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 46,017 patients who were admitted to two hospitals. A total of 1,548 and 639 patients had sepsis and septic shock, respectively. The DLM was developed using 73,727 ECGs from 18,142 patients, and internal validation was conducted using 7774 ECGs from 7,774 patients. Furthermore, we conducted an external validation with 20,101 ECGs from 20,101 patients from another hospital to verify the applicability of the DLM across centers. Results: During the internal and external validations, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the DLM using 12-lead ECG was 0.901 (95% confidence interval, 0.882–0.920) and 0.863 (0.846–0.879), respectively, for screening sepsis and 0.906 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.877–0.936) and 0.899 (95% CI, 0.872–0.925), respectively, for detecting septic shock. The AUC of the DLM for detecting sepsis using 6-lead and single-lead ECGs was 0.845–0.882. A sensitivity map revealed that the QRS complex and T waves were associated with sepsis. Subgroup analysis was conducted using ECGs from 4,609 patients who were admitted with an infectious disease, and the AUC of the DLM for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.817 (0.793–0.840). There was a significant difference in the prediction score of DLM using ECG according to the presence of infection in the validation dataset (0.277 vs. 0.574, p < 0.001), including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (0.260 vs. 0.725, p = 0.018). Conclusions: The DLM delivered reasonable performance for sepsis screening using 12-, 6-, and single-lead ECGs. The results suggest that sepsis can be screened using not only conventional ECG devices but also diverse life-type ECG machines employing the DLM, thereby preventing irreversible disease progression and mortality.

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 · 10.1186/s13049-021-00953-8

Cites

33 of 33 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [7]Court O, Kumar A, Parrillo JE, Kumar A. Clinical review: myocardial depression in sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care. 2002. PMC153435 12493071
  2. [10]Attia ZI, Kapa S, Lopez-Jimenez F, McKie PM, Ladewig DJ, Satam G, et al. Screening for cardiac contractile dysfunction using an artificial intelligence–enabled electrocardiogram. Nat Med. 2019. 30617318

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kwon, J.-M., Lee, Y. R., Jung, M.-S., Lee, Y.-J., Jo, Y.-Y., Kang, D.-Y., Lee, S. Y., Cho, Y.-H., Shin, J.-H., Ban, J.-H., & Kim, K.-H.
Affiliations
Sejong Institute (KR)
Corresponding author
Kwon, Joon-myoung
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
Published
2021-10-03
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
145-145
ISSN
1757-7241 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3127943997
Cited by
28
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Research Foundation of Korea (2020R1F1A1073791)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
sepsis screening, septic shock, electrocardiogram, deep learning, electrocardiographic diagnosis, QRS complex, T wave, in-hospital mortality prediction, COVID-19 pandemic, external validation, sensitivity maps, 12-lead ECG, single-lead ECG
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Electrocardiography, Humans, Retrospective Studies, 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