Back

Data-driven decision support for individualised cardiovascular resuscitation in sepsis: a scoping review and primer for clinicians

Catling, F. J. R.; Nagendran, M.; Festor, P.; Bien, Z.; Harris, S.; Faisal, A. A.; Gordon, A. C.; Komorowski, M.

2023-08-28 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.1101/2023.08.26.23294666 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWe conducted a scoping review of machine learning systems that inform individualised cardiovascular resuscitation of adults in hospital with sepsis. Our study reviews the resuscitation tasks that the systems aim to assist with, system robustness and potential to improve patient care, and progress towards deployment in clinical practice. We assume no expertise in machine learning from the reader and introduce technical concepts where relevant. MethodsThis study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, arXiv, bioRxiv and medRxiv were systematically searched up to September 2021. We present a narrative synthesis of the included studies, which also aims to equip clinicians with an understanding of the foundational machine learning concepts necessary to interpret them. Results73 studies were included with 80% published after 2018. Supervised learning systems were often used to predict septic shock onset. Reinforcement learning systems were increasingly popular in the last five years, and were used to guide specific dosing of fluids and vasopressors. A minority of studies proposed systems containing biological models augmented with machine learning. Sepsis and septic shock were heterogeneously defined and 63% of studies derived their systems using a single dataset. Most studies performed only retrospective internal validation, with no further steps taken towards translating their proposed systems into clinical practice. ConclusionsMachine learning systems can theoretically match, or even exceed, human performance when predicting patient outcomes and choosing the most suitable cardiovascular treatment strategy in sepsis. However, with some notable exceptions, the vast majority of systems to date exist only as proof of concept, with significant barriers to translation.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.7%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 12%
7.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.7%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.4%
5
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
7
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.9%
9
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
10
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
11
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
12
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
13
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
15
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.8%
16
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
17
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
18
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
19
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
20
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
21
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
22
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
23
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
26
Pediatric Research
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
27
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
28
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
29
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
30
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.8%