Acute respiratory infections caused by bacterial or viral pathogens are among the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Despite improvements in pathogen-based diagnostics, most patients receive inappropriate antibiotics. Host response biomarkers offer an alternative diagnostic approach to direct antimicrobial use. This observational, cohort study determined whether host gene expression patterns discriminate non-infectious from infectious illness, and bacterial from viral causes of acute respiratory infection in the acute care setting. Peripheral whole blood gene expression from 273 subjects with community-onset acute respiratory infection (ARI) or non-infectious illness as well as 44 healthy controls was measured using microarrays. Sparse logistic regression was used to develop classifiers for bacterial ARI (71 probes), viral ARI (33 probes), or a non-infectious cause of illness (26 probes). Overall accuracy was 87% (238/273 concordant with clinical adjudication), which was more accurate than procalcitonin (78%, p<0.03) and three published classifiers of bacterial vs. viral infection (78-83%). The classifiers developed here externally validated in five publicly available datasets (AUC 0.90-0.99). A sixth publically available dataset included twenty-five patients with co-identification of bacterial and viral pathogens. Applying the ARI classifiers defined four distinct groups: a host response to bacterial ARI; viral ARI; co-infection; and neither a bacterial nor viral response. These findings create an opportunity to develop and utilize host gene expression classifiers as diagnostic platforms to combat inappropriate antibiotic use and emerging antibiotic resistance.

The three sepsis subtypes may represent a unifying framework for understanding the molecular heterogeneity of the sepsis syndrome. Further study could potentially enable a precision medicine approach of matching novel immunomodulatory therapies with septic patients most likely to benefit.

Improved risk stratification and prognosis prediction in sepsis is a critical unmet need. Clinical severity scores and available assays such as blood lactate reflect global illness severity with suboptimal performance, and do not specifically reveal the underlying dysregulation of sepsis. Here, we present prognostic models for 30-day mortality generated independently by three scientific groups by using 12 discovery cohorts containing transcriptomic data collected from primarily community-onset sepsis patients. Predictive performance is validated in five cohorts of community-onset sepsis patients in which the models show summary AUROCs ranging from 0.765–0.89. Similar performance is observed in four cohorts of hospital-acquired sepsis. Combining the new gene-expression-based prognostic models with prior clinical severity scores leads to significant improvement in prediction of 30-day mortality as measured via AUROC and net reclassification improvement index These models provide an opportunity to develop molecular bedside tests that may improve risk stratification and mortality prediction in patients with sepsis.

Background Successful integrations of machine learning into routine clinical care are exceedingly rare, and barriers to its adoption are poorly characterized in the literature. Objective This study aims to report a quality improvement effort to integrate a deep learning sepsis detection and management platform, Sepsis Watch, into routine clinical care. Methods In 2016, a multidisciplinary team consisting of statisticians, data scientists, data engineers, and clinicians was assembled by the leadership of an academic health system to radically improve the detection and treatment of sepsis. This report of the quality improvement effort follows the learning health system framework to describe the problem assessment, design, development, implementation, and evaluation plan of Sepsis Watch. Results Sepsis Watch was successfully integrated into routine clinical care and reshaped how local machine learning projects are executed. Frontline clinical staff were highly engaged in the design and development of the workflow, machine learning model, and application. Novel machine learning methods were developed to detect sepsis early, and implementation of the model required robust infrastructure. Significant investment was required to align stakeholders, develop trusting relationships, define roles and responsibilities, and to train frontline staff, leading to the establishment of 3 partnerships with internal and external research groups to evaluate Sepsis Watch. Conclusions Machine learning models are commonly developed to enhance clinical decision making, but successful integrations of machine learning into routine clinical care are rare. Although there is no playbook for integrating deep learning into clinical care, learnings from the Sepsis Watch integration can inform efforts to develop machine learning technologies at other health care delivery systems.

IMPORTANCE The ability to accurately predict in-hospital mortality for patients at the time of admission could improve clinical and operational decision-making and outcomes. Few of the machine learning models that have been developed to predict in-hospital death are both broadly applicable to all adult patients across a health system and readily implementable. Similarly, few have been implemented, and none have been evaluated prospectively and externally validated.OBJECTIVES To prospectively and externally validate a machine learning model that predicts in-hospital mortality for all adult patients at the time of hospital admission and to design the model using commonly available electronic health record data and accessible computational methods. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this prognostic study, electronic health record data from a total of 43 180 hospitalizations representing 31 003 unique adult patients admitted to a quaternary academic hospital (hospital A) from October 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015, formed a training and validation cohort. The model was further validated in additional cohorts spanning from March 1, 2018, to August 31, 2018, using 16 122 hospitalizations representing 13 094 unique adult patients admitted to hospital A, 6586 hospitalizations representing 5613 unique adult patients admitted to hospital B, and 4086 hospitalizations representing 3428 unique adult patients admitted to hospital C. The model was integrated into the production electronic health record system and prospectively validated on a cohort of 5273 hospitalizations representing 4525 unique adult patients admitted to hospital A between February 14, 2019, and April 15, 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Model performance was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the precision recall curve. RESULTS A total of 75 247 hospital admissions (median [interquartile range] patient age, 59.5 [29.0]years; 45.9% involving male patients) were included in the study. The in-hospital mortality rates for the training validation; retrospective validations at hospitals A, B, and C; and prospective validation cohorts were 3.0%, 2.7%, 1.8%, 2.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.87), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.90), respectively. The area under the precision recall curves were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.37), 0.17 (95% CI, 0.13-0.22), 0.22 (95% CI, 0.14-0.31), 0.13 (95% CI, 0.08-0.21), and 0.14 (95% CI, 0.09-0.21), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEProspective and multisite retrospective evaluations of a machine learning model demonstrated good discrimination of in-hospital mortality for adult patients at the (continued) Key Points Question How accurately can a machine learning model predict risk of in-hospital mortality for adult patients when evaluated prospectively and externally? Findings In this p...