Sepsis is the primary cause of burn-related mortality and morbidity. Traditional indicators of sepsis exhibit poor performance when used in this unique population due to their underlying hypermetabolic and inflammatory response following burn injury. To address this challenge, we developed the Machine intelligence Learning optimizer (MiLo), an automated machine learning (ML) platform, to automatically produce ML models for predicting burn sepsis. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 211 adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with severe burn injury (≥ 20% total body surface area) to generate training and test datasets for ML applications. the MiLo approach was compared against an exhaustive "non-automated" ML approach as well as standard statistical methods. For this study, traditional multivariate logistic regression (LR) identified seven predictors of burn sepsis when controlled for age and burn size (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.99-4.04, P = 0.032). The area under the ROC (ROC-AUC) when using these seven predictors was 0.88. Next, the non-automated ML approach produced an optimal model based on LR using 16 out of the 23 features from the study dataset. Model accuracy was 86% with ROC-AUC of 0.96. In contrast, MILO identified a k-nearest neighbor-based model using only five features to be the best performer with an accuracy of 90% and a ROC-AUC of 0.96. Machine learning augments burn sepsis prediction. MILO identified models more quickly, with less required features, and found to be analytically superior to traditional ML approaches. Future studies are needed to clinically validate the performance of MILO-derived ML models for sepsis prediction. Burn patients are at high risk for infections, with sepsis being the most common cause of morbidity and mortality 1. Traditional indicators of sepsis defined previously by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2 and other organizations exhibit poor performance when used in this unique population due to their underlying hypermetabolic and inflammatory response to burn injury. For example, the systemic inflammatory response syndrome 2,3 lacks clinical sensitivity and specificity when applied to severely burned patients 1 , while the newer 2016 "Sepsis-3" criteria remain controversial in both burned and non-burned patients 4-7. To this end, early and accurate recognition of sepsis represents a significant clinical knowledge gap in burn critical care. The American Burn Association (ABA) Consensus Guidelines published in 2007 was intended to better differentiate burn sepsis from the natural host-response to injury (Table 1) 1. These guidelines recognized deficiencies of traditional indications of sepsis and removed less specific parameters such as white blood cell count (WBC). Fever was redefined as temperatures > 39 °C to improve specificity and at the cost of sensitivity. Glycemic variability and thrombocytopenia were also included in the ABA Consensus Guidelines; however, measurement of glycemic variability is challenging without continuous glucose monitoring technology and platelet count aids ...

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are poised to transform infectious disease testing. Uniquely, infectious disease testing is technologically diverse spaces in laboratory medicine, where multiple platforms and approaches may be required to support clinical decision-making. Despite advances in laboratory informatics, the vast array of infectious disease data is constrained by human analytical limitations. Machine learning can exploit multiple data streams, including but not limited to laboratory information and overcome human limitations to provide physicians with predictive and actionable results. As a quickly evolving area of computer science, laboratory professionals should become aware of AI/ML applications for infectious disease testing as more platforms are become commercially available. Content In this review we: (a) define both AI/ML, (b) provide an overview of common ML approaches used in laboratory medicine, (c) describe the current AI/ML landscape as it relates infectious disease testing, and (d) discuss the future evolution AI/ML for infectious disease testing in both laboratory and point-of-care applications. Summary The review provides an important educational overview of AI/ML technique in the context of infectious disease testing. This includes supervised ML approaches, which are frequently used in laboratory medicine applications including infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, sepsis, hepatitis, malaria, meningitis, Lyme disease, and tuberculosis. We also apply the concept of “data fusion” describing the future of laboratory testing where multiple data streams are integrated by AI/ML to provide actionable clinical knowledge.

Background. Several groups have previously developed logistic regression models for predicting delayed graft function (DGF). In this study, we used an automated machine learning (ML) modeling pipeline to generate and optimize DGF prediction models en masse. Methods. Deceased donor renal transplants at our institution from 2010 to 2018 were included. Input data consisted of 21 donor features from United Network for Organ Sharing. A training set composed of ~50%/50% split in DGF-positive and DGF-negative cases was used to generate 400 869 models. Each model was based on 1 of 7 ML algorithms (gradient boosting machine, k-nearest neighbor, logistic regression, neural network, naive Bayes, random forest, support vector machine) with various combinations of feature sets and hyperparameter values. Performance of each model was based on a separate secondary test dataset and assessed by common statistical metrics. Results. The best performing models were based on neural network algorithms, with the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.7595. This model used 10 out of the original 21 donor features, including age, height, weight, ethnicity, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, hypertension history, donation after cardiac death status, cause of death, and cold ischemia time. With the same donor data, the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for logistic regression models was 0.7484, using all donor features. Conclusions. Our automated en masse ML modeling approach was able to rapidly generate ML models for DGF prediction. The performance of the ML models was comparable with classic logistic regression models.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have now spawned a new field within health care and health science research. These new predictive analytics tools are starting to change various facets of our clinical care domains including the practice of laboratory medicine. Many of these ML tools and studies are also starting to populate our literature landscape as we know it but unfamiliarity of the average reader to the basic knowledge and critical concepts within AI/ML is now demanding a need to better prepare our audience to such relatively unfamiliar concepts. A fundamental knowledge of such platforms will inevitably enhance cross‐disciplinary literacy and ultimately lead to enhanced integration and understanding of such tools within our discipline. In this review, we provide a general outline of AI/ML along with an overview of the fundamental concepts of ML categories, specifically supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning. Additionally, since the vast majority of our current approaches within ML in laboratory medicine and health care involve supervised algorithms, we will predominantly concentrate on such platforms. Finally, the need for making such tools more accessible to the average investigator is becoming a major driving force for the need of automation within these ML platforms. This has now given rise to the automated ML (Auto‐ML) world which will undoubtedly help shape the future of ML within health care. Hence, an overview of Auto‐ML is also covered within this manuscript which will hopefully enrich the reader's understanding, appreciation, and the need for embracing such tools.

No abstract