IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0300739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing SOFA score trajectories in sepsis using machine learning: A pragmatic approach to improve the accuracy of mortality prediction

Author

Listed:
  • Lars Palmowski
  • Hartmuth Nowak
  • Andrea Witowski
  • Björn Koos
  • Alexander Wolf
  • Maike Weber
  • Daniel Kleefisch
  • Matthias Unterberg
  • Helge Haberl
  • Alexander von Busch
  • Christian Ertmer
  • Alexander Zarbock
  • Christian Bode
  • Christian Putensen
  • Ulrich Limper
  • Frank Wappler
  • Thomas Köhler
  • Dietrich Henzler
  • Daniel Oswald
  • Björn Ellger
  • Stefan F Ehrentraut
  • Lars Bergmann
  • Katharina Rump
  • Dominik Ziehe
  • Nina Babel
  • Barbara Sitek
  • Katrin Marcus
  • Ulrich H Frey
  • Patrick J Thoral
  • Michael Adamzik
  • Martin Eisenacher
  • Tim Rahmel
  • on behalf of the SepsisDataNet.NRW research group

Abstract

Introduction: An increasing amount of longitudinal health data is available on critically ill septic patients in the age of digital medicine, including daily sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score measurements. Thus, the assessment in sepsis focuses increasingly on the evaluation of the individual disease’s trajectory. Machine learning (ML) algorithms may provide a promising approach here to improve the evaluation of daily SOFA score dynamics. We tested whether ML algorithms can outperform the conventional ΔSOFA score regarding the accuracy of 30-day mortality prediction. Methods: We used the multicentric SepsisDataNet.NRW study cohort that prospectively enrolled 252 sepsis patients between 03/2018 and 09/2019 for training ML algorithms, i.e. support vector machine (SVM) with polynomial kernel and artificial neural network (aNN). We used the Amsterdam UMC database covering 1,790 sepsis patients for external and independent validation. Results: Both SVM (AUC 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71–0.96) and aNN (AUC 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69–0.95) assessing the SOFA scores of the first seven days led to a more accurate prognosis of 30-day mortality compared to the ΔSOFA score between day 1 and 7 (AUC 0.73; 95% CI: 0.65–0.80; p = 0.02 and p = 0.05, respectively). These differences were even more prominent the shorter the time interval considered. Using the SOFA scores of day 1 to 3 SVM (AUC 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68 0.95) and aNN (AUC 0.80; 95% CI: 0.660.93) led to a more accurate prognosis of 30-day mortality compared to the ΔSOFA score (AUC 0.66; 95% CI: 0.58–0.74; p

Suggested Citation

  • Lars Palmowski & Hartmuth Nowak & Andrea Witowski & Björn Koos & Alexander Wolf & Maike Weber & Daniel Kleefisch & Matthias Unterberg & Helge Haberl & Alexander von Busch & Christian Ertmer & Alexande, 2024. "Assessing SOFA score trajectories in sepsis using machine learning: A pragmatic approach to improve the accuracy of mortality prediction," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-18, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300739
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300739
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300739&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0300739?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300739. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.