INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE / CLINICAL RESEARCH
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Although their importance has gained attention, the clinical applications of methods for screening patients at high risk of sepsis after abdominal surgery have been restricted. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate models for screening patients at high risk of sepsis after abdominal surgery based on machine learning with routine variables.

Material and methods:
The whole dataset was composed of three representative academic hospitals in China and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database. Routine clinical variables were implemented for model development. The Boruta algorithm was applied for feature selection. Afterwards, ensemble learning and eight other conventional algorithms were used for model fitting and validation based on all features and selected features. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC AUC), sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, accuracy, net reclassification index (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration curves were used for model evaluation.

Results:
A total of 955 patients undergoing abdominal surgery were finally analyzed (sepsis: 285, non-sepsis: 670). After feature selection, the ensemble learning model constructed by integrating k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) yielded the ROC AUC of 0.892 (0.841–0.944) and accuracy of 85.0% on the test data, and the ROC AUC of 0.782 (0.727–0.838) and accuracy of 68.1% on the validation data, which performed best. Albumin, ASA score, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, age, and glucose were the top features associated with postoperative sepsis by KNN and SVM.

Conclusions:
We developed a new and potential generalizable model to preoperatively screen patients at high risk of sepsis after abdominal surgery, with the advantages of a representative training cohort and routine variables.
REFERENCES (42)
1.
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016; 315: 801-10.
 
2.
Plaeke P, De Man JG, Coenen S, Jorens PG, De Winter BY, Hubens G. Clinical- and surgery-specific risk factors for post-operative sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 30 million patients. Surg Today 2020; 50: 427-39.
 
3.
Fried E, Weissman C, Sprung C. Postoperative sepsis. Curr Opin Crit Care 2011; 17: 396-401.
 
4.
Bateman BT, Schmidt U, Berman MF, Bittner EA. Temporal trends in the epidemiology of severe postoperative sepsis after elective surgery: a large, nationwide sample. Anesthesiology 2010; 112: 917-25.
 
5.
Brakenridge SC, Efron PA, Cox MC, et al. Current epidemiology of surgical sepsis: discordance between inpatient mortality and 1-year outcomes. Ann Surg 2019; 270: 502-10.
 
6.
Bui MH, Khuong QL, Le PA, et al. Cost of postoperative sepsis in Vietnam. Sci Rep 2022; 12: 4876.
 
7.
Bunn C, Kulshrestha S, Boyda J, et al. Application of machine learning to the prediction of postoperative sepsis after appendectomy. Surgery 2021; 169: 671-7.
 
8.
Zhang H, Meng F, Lu S. Nomograms predicting the occurrence of sepsis in patients following major hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2020; 2020: 9761878.
 
9.
Ren Y, Loftus TJ, Datta S, et al. Performance of a machine learning algorithm using electronic health record data to predict postoperative complications and report on a mobile platform. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5: e2211973.
 
10.
Bihorac A, Ozrazgat-Baslanti T, Ebadi A, et al. MySurgeryRisk: development and validation of a machine-learning risk algorithm for major complications and death after surgery. Ann Surg 2019; 269: 652-62.
 
11.
Wang XW, Niu XG, Li JX, Zhang SS, Jiao XF. SOFA score can effectively predict the incidence of sepsis and 30-day mortality in liver transplant patients: a retrospective study. Adv Ther 2019; 36: 645-51.
 
12.
Peng Y, Zhang W, Xu Y, et al. Performance of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS to predict septic shock after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 2021; 39: 501-10.
 
13.
Niyongombwa I, Sibomana I, Karenzi ID, Kiswezi A, Rickard J. Kigali Surgical Sepsis (KiSS) score: a new tool to predict outcomes in surgical patients with sepsis in low- and middle-income settings. World J Surg 2020; 44: 3651-7.
 
14.
Gabriel RA, Trivedi S, Schmidt UH. A point-based risk calculator predicting mortality in patients that developed postoperative sepsis. J Intensive Care Med 2021; 36: 1443-9.
 
15.
Madushani R, Patel V, Loftus T, et al. Early biomarker signatures in surgical sepsis. J Surg Res 2022; 277: 372-83.
 
16.
Fleuren LM, Klausch TLT, Zwager CL, et al. Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46: 383-400.
 
17.
Zhong J, Zeng X, Cao W, et al. Semisupervised multiple choice learning for ensemble classification. IEEE Trans Cybern 2022; 52: 3658-68.
 
18.
Luo S, Xu J, Jiang Z, et al. Artificial intelligence-based collaborative filtering method with ensemble learning for personalized lung cancer medicine without genetic sequencing. Pharmacol Res 2020; 160: 105037.
 
19.
Horng H, Steinkamp J, Kahn CE Jr, Cook TS. Ensemble approaches to recognize protected health information in radiology reports. J Digit Imaging 2022; 35: 1694-8.
 
20.
Johnson A, Bulgarelli L, Pollard T, Horng S, Celi LA, Mark R. MIMIC-IV (version 2.2). PhysioNet2023.
 
21.
Bouza C, Lopez-Cuadrado T, Amate-Blanco JM. Use of explicit ICD9-CM codes to identify adult severe sepsis: impacts on epidemiological estimates. Crit Care 2016; 20: 313.
 
22.
Tang F, Ishwaran H. Random forest missing data algorithms. Stat Anal Data Min 2017; 10: 363-77.
 
23.
Degenhardt F, Seifert S, Szymczak S. Evaluation of variable selection methods for random forests and omics data sets. Brief Bioinform 2019; 20: 492-503.
 
24.
Uno H, Tian L, Cai T, Kohane IS, Wei LJ. A unified inference procedure for a class of measures to assess improvement in risk prediction systems with survival data. Stat Med 2013; 32: 2430-42.
 
25.
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 565-74.
 
26.
Fitzgerald M, Saville BR, Lewis RJ. Decision curve analysis. JAMA 2015; 313: 409-10.
 
27.
Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, Steyerberg EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med 2011; 30: 11-21.
 
28.
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016; 315: 801.
 
29.
Pullyblank A, Tavaré A, Little H, et al. Implementation of the National Early Warning Score in patients with suspicion of sepsis: evaluation of a system-wide quality improvement project. Br J Gen Pract 2020; 70:e381-e8
 
30.
Croft CA, Moore FA, Efron PA, et al. Computer versus paper system for recognition and management of sepsis in surgical intensive care. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014; 76: 311-7; discussion 8-9.
 
31.
Brown SM, Jones J, Kuttler KG, Keddington RK, Allen TL, Haug P. Prospective evaluation of an automated method to identify patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in the emergency department. BMC Emerg Med 2016; 16: 31.
 
32.
Couvy-Duchesne B, Faouzi J, Martin B, et al. Ensemble learning of convolutional neural network, support vector machine, and best linear unbiased predictor for brain age prediction: ARAMIS contribution to the predictive analytics competition 2019 challenge. Front Psychiatry 2020; 11: 593336.
 
33.
Zhu Y, Brettin T, Evrard YA, et al. Ensemble transfer learning for the prediction of anti-cancer drug response. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 18040.
 
34.
Wiedermann CJ. Hypoalbuminemia as surrogate and culprit of infections. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22: 4496.
 
35.
Huang Z, Fu Z, Huang W, Huang K. Prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in sepsis: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med 2020; 38: 641-7.
 
36.
Rehman FU, Khan A, Aziz A, Iqbal M, Mahmood SBZ, Ali N. Neutrophils to lymphocyte ratio: earliest and efficacious markers of sepsis. Cureus 2020; 12: e10851.
 
37.
van Vught LA, Wiewel MA, Klein Klouwenberg PM, et al. Admission hyperglycemia in critically ill sepsis patients: association with outcome and host response. Crit Care Med 2016; 44: 1338-46.
 
38.
Zohar Y, Zilberman Itskovich S, Koren S, Zaidenstein R, Marchaim D, Koren R. The association of diabetes and hyperglycemia with sepsis outcomes: a population-based cohort analysis. Intern Emerg Med 2021; 16: 719-28.
 
39.
Shen XF, Cao K, Jiang JP, Guan WX, Du JF. Neutrophil dysregulation during sepsis: an overview and update. J Cell Mol Med 2017; 21: 1687-97.
 
40.
Crouser ED, Parrillo JE, Seymour CW, et al. Monocyte distribution width: a novel indicator of sepsis-2 and sepsis-3 in high-risk emergency department patients. Crit Care Med 2019; 47: 1018-25.
 
41.
Guarracino F, Bertini P, Pinsky MR. Cardiovascular determinants of resuscitation from sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care 2019; 23: 118.
 
42.
Piotrowski D, Sączewska-Piotrowska A, Jaroszewicz J, Boroń-Kaczmarska A. Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio as the best simple predictor of bacterial infection in patients with liver cirrhosis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 1727.
 
eISSN:1896-9151
ISSN:1734-1922
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top