Passive Evaluation in Operational Environment of the AI Clinician Decision Support System for Sepsis Treatment
NCT ID: NCT05287477
Last Updated: 2023-10-27
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
15 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2022-03-24
2024-08-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
A Machine Learning Predictive Model for Sepsis
NCT04771429
Comparison of Sepsis Prediction Algorithms
NCT05943938
AI Clinician XP2 - A Study of the AI Clinician Running in Real Time in the ICU
NCT05748301
Novel Sepsis Sub-phenotypes Based on Trajectories of Vital Signs
NCT05826223
Management of Sepsis in Resource Limited Settings Using a Delphi Method.
NCT05909384
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The cornerstone of sepsis resuscitation is the administration of intravenous fluids and/or vasopressors (drugs that squeeze the blood vessels to increase blood pressure) to maintain blood flow to prevent organ failure. However, there is huge uncertainty around the individual dosing of these drugs in an individual patient, partially due to high sepsis heterogeneity. The current guidelines provide recommendations at a population-level but fail to individualise the decisions. Wrong decisions lead to poorer outcomes and increased ICU-resource use. A tool to personalise these medications could improve patient survival.
The study team has developed a new method to automatically and continuously review and recommend the correct dose of these medications to doctors, which was created using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques applied to large medical databases. The method used is called reinforcement learning. In this framework, the study models patients with sepsis in the ICU as belonging to a large number of possible disease states, and analyses what interventions are likely to help them transition to healthier states, and eventually to survival. The researchers demonstrated in their initial publication that the value of the AI selected strategy was on average reliably higher than human clinicians. In a large validation cohort independent from the training data, mortality was lowest in patients where clinicians' actual doses matched the AI decisions: mortality rates rose, in a dose dependent manner, as the clinicians' actual decisions diverged from the AI decisions. The study team has estimated that their AI algorithm could reduce mortality by 10% (in relative terms), which represents over 1,000 lives saved annually in the UK and would scale to hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide. Now, the study team intends to start clinical testing of this AI technology in the UK.
The envisioned end-product will be a piece of software that will be accessible by clinicians (ICU doctors initially, then eventually to ICU nurses as well) at the bedside in intensive care. This software will be connected to the electronic patient record, which will be fed to the AI algorithm. In return, the AI will identify where the patient sits in the array of possible disease states, and which actions (a dose of intravenous fluids and vasopressors) are most likely to be beneficial.
First, the study team will develop this software tool, capable of processing patient data within the electronic patient record of NHS hospitals in real-time to suggest a course of action. The study will start by evaluating and refining this tool in simulation studies. The study team will then test the AI tool in two NHS Trusts in a "shadow mode" when the result is not provided to duty clinicians in charge of patient care. This will allow comparison of actual decisions made and recommended decisions from the AI system. In the second stage of the clinical evaluation, the study team will display the recommendations to clinicians to assess the acceptability of the tool to clinicians and also confirm the technical feasibility to inform future large scale clinical trials.
The long-term expected benefits of this project are numerous: improved patient survival, reduced use of precious intensive care resources and reduction in healthcare costs.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
OTHER
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Adult patient \> 18 years old
* Admitted to an intensive care unit
* Likely or confirmed diagnosis of sepsis as per sepsis-3 definition (as defined in the glossary)
* ICU length of stay \> 24h
For Evaluators:
\- ICU doctors at the senior registrar, ICU fellow or consultant level
Exclusion Criteria
* Not for full active care, e.g. not for vasopressors
* Not expected to survive more than 24h
* Elective surgical admission (these patients are regularly on antibiotics but given as a prophylaxis, with no sepsis)
* Opted-out for use of their data for research (NHS and NHS-X website)
For both patients and evaluators:
Declined participation No patient consent is required
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
National Institute for Health Research, United Kingdom
OTHER_GOV
Imperial College London
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Univeristy College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
London, , United Kingdom
Imperial College Hospitals NHS Trust
London, , United Kingdom
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Novin Fard
Role: primary
Robyn Kullar
Role: primary
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol
Document Type: Informed Consent Form
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
20HH6297
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.