ABSTRACT
Sepsis is characterised by a dysfunctional host response to infection culminating in life-threatening organ failure that requires complex patient management and rapid intervention. Timely diagnosis of the underlying cause of sepsis is crucial, and identifying those at risk of complications and death is imperative for triaging treatment and resource allocation. Here, we explored the potential of explainable machine learning models to predict mortality and causative pathogen in sepsis patients. By using a modelling pipeline employing multiple feature selection algorithms, we demonstrate the feasibility to identify integrative patterns from clinical parameters, plasma biomarkers and extensive phenotyping of blood immune cells. Whilst no single variable had sufficient predictive power, models that combined five and more features showed a macro area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 to predict 90 day mortality after sepsis diagnosis, and a macro AUC of 0.86 to discriminate between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial infections. Parameters associated with the cellular immune response contributed the most to models predictive of 90 day mortality, most notably, the proportion of T cells among PBMCs, together with expression of CXCR3 by CD4+ T cells and CD25 by mucosal-associated invariant T (MAIT) cells. Frequencies of Vδ2+ γδ T cells had the most profound impact on the prediction of Gram-negative infections, alongside other T cell-related variables and total neutrophil count. Overall, our findings highlight the added value of measuring the proportion and activation patterns of conventional and unconventional T cells in the blood of sepsis patients in combination with other immunological, biochemical and clinical parameters.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by Cardiff University School of Medicine PhD Studentships (R.J.B., L.M.M.), a EU Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie postdoctoral fellowship (L.R.), the European Regional Development Fund via the Welsh Government's Accelerate (M.E.) and Ser Cymru II programmes (V.O.B., P.G.), a Health and Care Research Wales Clinical Research Time Award (M.P.M.), a Pathway to Portfolio grant (M.P.M.), a Wellcome Trust Institutional Translational Partnership Award (R.J.B, S.M.C., M.P.M., A.A., M.E.), and the Wales Data Nation Accelerator (M.E.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Recruitment of sepsis patients was approved by the Health and Care Research Wales Research Ethics Committee under reference 17/WA/0253, protocol number SPON1609-17 and IRAS project ID 231993, and conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. All study participants provided written informed consent for the collection of samples and their subsequent analysis. A waiver of consent system was used when patients were unable to provide prospective informed consent due to the nature of their critical illness or therapeutic sedation at the time of recruitment. In all cases, retrospective informed consent was sought as soon as the patient recovered and regained capacity. In cases where a patient passed away before regaining capacity, the initial consultee's approval would stand.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
