Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Zhang, Hongru1 | Wang, Chen1 | Yang, Ning*
Affiliations: Department of Pharmacy, Zhang Jiakou First Hospital, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China
Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Ning Yang. Department of Pharmacy, ZhangJiakou First Hospital No. 6, Libaisi Lane, Xinhua Front Street, Qiaoxi District, Zhangjiakou City, Hebei, 075000, China. Tel.: +86 313 8045080. E-mail: [email protected].
Note: [1] These authors contributed equally to this study.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Early identification of sepsis has been shown to significantly improve patient prognosis. OBJECTIVE: Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of machine-learning algorithms for sepsis prediction. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, covering literature up to December 2023. The keywords included machine learning, sepsis and prediction. After screening, data were extracted and analysed from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Key evaluation metrics included sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) for diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included a total of 21 studies with a data sample size of 4,158,941. Overall, the pooled sensitivity was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70–0.90; P< 0.001; I2= 99.7%), the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.86–0.94; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.91–0.96). The subgroup analysis revealed that in the emergency department setting (6 studies), the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI = 0.68–0.87; P< 0.001; I2= 99.6%), the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90–0.97; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.92–0.96). In the Intensive Care Unit setting (11 studies), the sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.75–0.97; P< 0.001; I2= 98.3%), the specificity was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75–0.92; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.91–0.95). Due to the limited number of studies in the in-hospital and mixed settings (n< 3), no pooled analysis was performed. CONCLUSION: Machine-learning algorithms have demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy in predicting the occurrence of sepsis, showing potential for clinical application.
Keywords: Sepsis, machine learning, prediction, meta-analysis
DOI: 10.3233/THC-240087
Journal: Technology and Health Care, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 4291-4307, 2024
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
[email protected]
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [email protected]
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: [email protected]