Learning a Continuous Sepsis Severity Score Without Hour-by-Hour Supervision: A Two-Site Retrospective Study

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Currently used sepsis severity indices rely on fixed variables and weights established decades ago, which are coarsely discretized and calibrated to a cohort that no longer reflects contemporary critical care. No alternative learned directly from patient trajectories is in routine use. We conducted a retrospective two-cohort study on a total of 29,116 and 7,691 adult patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria from two hospital systems in Massachusetts and Georgie, respectively. We developed a sepsis index using 43 routinely charted variables over a 72-hour treatment window. Unlike previous studies, we use mortality as a treatment-level ranking signal rather than a per-state target, allowing credit to be redistributed non-uniformly across timesteps. Evaluation was done on a permanent 20% test holdout, using clinical vignettes and Spearman correlation. Uncertainty intervals were obtained by bootstrap resampling of whole patients. Under this ranking scheme, non-survivors scored 1.19-1.64 points higher than survivors on a 0-10 scale within all strata of baseline SOFA-2, with similar results stratifying within lactate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and creatinine. Within-patient change in the index correlated with change in lactate (Spearman rho = 0.39; n = 1,854). Similar, weaker correlations were found for MAP and creatinine. On a cohort level, cross-institutional agreement measured by Spearman correlation between models trained on different sites, were 70-77% of same-site correlation. External within-patient correlations were 0.54 and 0.59 against ceilings of 0.92 and 0.90. Our index also correlated with established indices, while null controls stayed near zero. Our index demonstrated hourly prognostic information that meaningfully separates patient outcomes and is consistent with clinical expectation, indicating potential as a decision support tool complementing clinical judgement.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments