The CISID prospective cohort used an initial automated electronic health record (EHR) screen to identify hospitalized adults with suspected sepsis. Automated screening required at least two SIRS criteria within a 24-hour lookback period, documentation of a microbiologic culture or PCR, and receipt of a new antibiotic. This automated step was intentionally sensitive but acknowledged as nonspecific and produced a large pool of candidates for downstream review.
Following automated detection, trained non-physician study staff conducted a brief structured chart review as an enrichment step. This review evaluated the charted presentation and clinical context to decide whether to flag a patient for potential enrollment and further approach. The enrichment review served to prioritize a subset of automated-screened patients for study-team effort, sampling, and longitudinal follow-up.
Enrolled patients underwent physician adjudication and were assigned to one of four diagnostic categories: sepsis, infection without sepsis, undifferentiated critical illness, or non-infectious sepsis mimic. Physician adjudication provided a clinical standard against which the enrichment process could be compared for diagnostic concordance and to characterize the enrolled cohort.
Across the study period reported, automated EHR screening identified 4,318 patients meeting the initial criteria. After the structured enrichment review, 1,220 patients (28% of those screened in) were flagged for enrollment discussion with clinical teams. From the flagged group, 288 patients were enrolled into the CISID cohort. The cohort drew patients from the emergency department, inpatient wards, and intensive care units within a tertiary academic medical center.
Among the 288 enrolled participants, physician adjudication classified 209 (73%) as sepsis, 46 (16%) as infection without sepsis, 14 (5%) as undifferentiated critical illness, and 19 (6.6%) as non-infectious sepsis mimics. Adjudicated sepsis patients demonstrated high acuity: the median SOFA score was 9, 80% required ICU admission, and 48% experienced shock. Over half (51%) of enrolled patients were immunocompromised. Observed outcomes included 14% in-hospital mortality and 27% mortality at 90 days among the enrolled cohort.
To evaluate the enrichment step more directly, the investigators analyzed a 9-week sample of 907 screened encounters. They applied a composite “sepsis-likely” variable defined by either meeting CDC Adult Sepsis Event criteria or having an ICD-10 code R65.20/R65.21 within 48 hours before or after screening. In this sample, 21% of patients deferred by the enrichment review met the sepsis-likely composite, whereas 70% of patients flagged for enrollment met it. This represents a 3.3-fold increase in prevalence of the sepsis-likely indicator after the structured study-team review.
The authors report that a brief, structured enrichment review performed after automated EHR screening substantially increased the concentration of patients with EHR-based sepsis indicators among those selected for enrollment. By narrowing the pool to roughly one-quarter of automated-screened patients, the process focused enrollment and biospecimen collection efforts on patients more likely to be adjudicated as sepsis. The authors suggest this approach may help prospective cohort studies direct limited longitudinal sampling and laboratory resources toward participants most informative for host-response and biomarker research.
The study reports institutional review board approval from the institutional review board of Mass General Brigham. All data produced are reported as contained in the manuscript, and supplementary materials and data/code links are provided with the preprint. The report is a medRxiv preprint and has not been peer-reviewed; the authors state it should not be used to guide clinical practice. No competing interests were declared in the source document.
Notes and limitations extracted from the source: The manuscript describes automated-screen criteria, enrichment review, and adjudicated outcomes, but details such as the exact structured review instrument items, time required per review, or reasons for exclusion at each step beyond aggregate counts were not reported in the abstracted source text. The reported results and classifications reflect the preprint content and have not undergone external peer review.