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.
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 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Identification of predictive patient characteristics for assessing the probability of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality 95%
- From theoretical models to practical deployment: A perspective and case study of opportunities and challenges in AI-driven healthcare research for low-income settings 92%
- Raising awareness of potential biases in medical machine learning: Experience from a Datathon 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis 95%
- A Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Hospital Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients 94%
- Derivation and validation of a triage tool for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- OASIS+: leveraging machine learning to improve the prognostic accuracy of OASIS severity score for predicting in-hospital mortality 95%
- Prediction of Sepsis Mortality in ICU Patients Using Machine Learning Methods 95%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Prospective Implementation of a Large Language Model based System for Early Sepsis Prediction 94%
- A comprehensive ML-based Respiratory Monitoring System for Physiological Monitoring & Resource Planning in the ICU 92%
- Evaluating large language model workflows in clinical decision support: referral, triage, and diagnosis 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and validation of automated computer aided-risk score for predicting the risk of in-hospital mortality using first electronically recorded blood test results and vital signs for COVID-19 hospital admissions: a retrospective development and validation study 94%
- Identification of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome subphenotypes denovo using routine clinical data: a retrospective analysis of ARDS clinical trials 93%
- Protocol for the development and validation of a machine-learning based tool for predicting the risk of hypertriglyceridemia in critically-ill patients receiving propofol sedation 93%
"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.