Back

Randomized Clinical Trials or Convenient Controls: TREWS or FALSE?

Nemati, S.; Shashikumar, S. P.; Holder, A. L.; Wardi, G.; Owens, R. L.

2022-08-09 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.1101/2022.08.08.22278526 medRxiv
Show abstract

We read with interest the Adams et al.1 report of the TREWS machine learning (ML)-based sepsis early warning system. The authors conclude that large-scale randomized trials are needed to confirm their observations, but assert that their findings indicate the potential for the TREWS system to identify sepsis patients early and improve patient outcomes, including a significant decrease in mortality. However, this conclusion is based upon a comparison of those whose alert was confirmed vs. not confirmed within 3 hours, rather than random allocation to TREWS vs. no TREWS. Using data from over 650,000 patient encounters across two distinct healthcare systems, we show that the findings of Adams et al. are likely to be severely biased due to the failure to adjust for processes of care-related confounding factors.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.