Subtle variation in sepsis-III definitions markedly influences predictive performance within and across methods

Samuel N. Cohen, James Foster, Peter Foster, Hang Lou, Terry Lyons, Sam Morley, James Morrill, Hao Ni*, Edward Palmer, Bo Wang, Yue Wu, Lingyi Yang, Weixin Yang

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Early detection of sepsis is key to ensure timely clinical intervention. Since very few end-to-end pipelines are publicly available, fair comparisons between methodologies are difficult if not impossible. Progress is further limited by discrepancies in the reconstruction of sepsis onset time. This retrospective cohort study highlights the variation in performance of predictive models under three subtly different interpretations of sepsis onset from the sepsis-III definition and compares this against inter-model differences. The models are chosen to cover tree-based, deep learning, and survival analysis methods. Using the MIMIC-III database, between 867 and 2178 intensive care unit admissions with sepsis were identified, depending on the onset definition. We show that model performance can be more sensitive to differences in the definition of sepsis onset than to the model itself. Given a fixed sepsis definition, the best performing method had a gain of 1–5% in the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). However, the choice of onset time can cause a greater effect, with variation of 0–6% in AUROC. We illustrate that misleading conclusions can be drawn if models are compared without consideration of the sepsis definition used which emphasizes the need for a standardized definition for sepsis onset.
Original languageEnglish
Article number1920
Number of pages10
JournalScientific Reports
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 22 Jan 2024

Funding

S.C., J.F., P.F., H.L., T.L., S.M., J.M., H.N., E.P., Y.W., and L.Y. are supported by the Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. J.F., T.L., S.M., H.N., and Y.W. are supported by the EPSRC under the program grant EP/S026347/1. T. L. is supported in part by the Data Centric Engineering Programme (under the Lloyd’s Register Foundation grant G0095) and the Office of National Statistics Programme (funded by the UK Government) and in part by the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission (InnoHK Project CIMDA). T.L. and P.F. are supported by the Defence and Security Programme at the Alan Turing Institute, funded by the UK Government. H.L. is supported by UCL-CSC scholarship by University College London and the China Scholarship Council (CSC) from the Ministry of Education of P.R. China. L.Y. and J.M. are supported by EPSRC grant EP/L015803/1 and L.Y. is also supported by the Clarendon Fund. E.P. is supported by an NIHR clinical lectureship. B. W. is supported by “The Harvard Program in Precision Psychiatry” under the funding of Harvard Medical School and the Sang Foundation.

Keywords

  • sepsis
  • predictive models
  • standardized definition

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Subtle variation in sepsis-III definitions markedly influences predictive performance within and across methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this