The impact of recency and adequacy of historical information on sepsis predictions using machine learning

AbstractSepsis is a major public and global health concern. Every hour of delay in detecting sepsis significantly increases the risk of death, highlighting the importance of accurately predicting sepsis in a timely manner. A growing body of literature has examined developing new or improving the existing machine learning (ML) approaches for timely and accurate predictions of sepsis. This study contributes to this literature by providing clear insights regarding the role of the recency and adequacy of historical information in predicting sepsis using ML. To this end, we implemented a deep learning model using a bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM) algorithm and compared it with six other ML algorithms based on numerous combinations of the prediction horizons (to capture information recency) and observation windows (to capture information adequacy) using different measures of predictive performance. Our results indicated that the BiLSTM algorithm outperforms all other ML algorithms and provides a great separability of the predicted risk of sepsis among septic versus non-septic patients. Moreover, decreasing the prediction horizon (in favor of information recency) always boosts the predictive performance; however, the impact of expanding the observation window (in favor of information adequacy) depends on the prediction horizon and the purpose of prediction. More specifically, when the prediction is responsive to the positive label (i.e., Sepsis), increasing historical data improves the predictive performance when the prediction horizon is short-moderate.</jats:p

Scheduling operating rooms: achievements, challenges and pitfalls

In hospitals, the operating room (OR) is a particularly expensive facility and thus efficient scheduling is imperative. This can be greatly supported by using advanced methods that are discussed in the academic literature. In order to help researchers and practitioners to select new relevant articles, we classify the recent OR planning and scheduling literature into tables regarding patient type, used performance measures, decisions made, OR up- and downstream facilities, uncertainty, research methodology and testing phase. Based on these classifications, we identify trends and promising topics. Additionally, we recognize three common pitfalls that hamper the adoption of research results by stakeholders: the lack of a clear choice of authors on whether to target researchers (contributing advanced methods) or practitioners (providing managerial insights), the use of ill-fitted performance measures in models and the failure to understandably report on the hospital setting and method-related assumptions. We provide specific guidelines that help to avoid these pitfalls. First, we show how to build up an article based on the choice of the target group (i.e., researchers or practitioners). Making a clear distinction between target groups impacts the problem setting, the research task, the reported findings, and the conclusions. Second, we discuss points that need to be considered by researchers when deciding on the used performance measures. Third, we list the assumptions that need to be included in articles in order to enable readers to decide whether the presented research is relevant to them