CClinicalTrials.gg
WithdrawnNCT03882476Updated Sep 23, 2021

RCT of Sepsis Machine Learning Algorithm

A Phase 2 interventional study of InSight in Sepsis, Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, sponsored by Dascena. Withdrawn. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-09-23.

Sponsored by Dascena · Phase 2, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Why this study was withdrawn
Study not funded
Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
0
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The focus of this study will be to conduct a prospective, multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) at Cape Regional Medical Center (CRMC), Oroville Hospital (OH), and UCSF Medical Center (UCSF) in which a machine-learning algorithm will be applied to EHR data for the detection of sepsis. For patients determined to have a high risk of sepsis, the algorithm will generate automated voice, telephone notification to nursing staff at CRMC, OH, and UCSF. The algorithm's performance will be measured by analysis of the primary endpoint, in-hospital SIRS-based mortality.

Read the detailed description

From January 2020 to February 2021, inclusive, investigators will perform a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) at CRMC, OH, and UCSF. All aims of this study have been have been submitted for approval by the Pearl Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent.

During the study period, all patients over the age of 18 presenting to the emergency department or admitted to an inpatient unit at the participating facilities will automatically be enrolled in the trial, until the target enrollment for the study is met. Enrollment will entail randomization to either the control or the experimental arms. Patients will be assigned to the experimental group or control group based on a random allocation sequence, generated by a computer program before the start of the trial, using simple randomization, with a 1:1 allocation ratio. This allocation sequence will be concealed to patients, healthcare providers and study investigators. However the trial will have an open-label design, as full blinding is not possible as some group assignments will become naturally revealed upon receipt of telephonic alerts.

There will be two arms in the study. The control arm will involve patients with the usual standard of care, and the experimental arm will involve patients monitored by InSight. If the applicable algorithm determines a patient to be at a high risk for sepsis, a telephonic alert will be sent to the charge nurse on duty in the patient's current location. Response to alerts will follow the protocol from our previous sepsis clinical trial. The procedure consists of a nurse conducting a patient bedside evaluation to rule out suspected infection. This includes assessment of patient vital signs, EHR notes, and recent laboratory results. If the nurse suspects sepsis, a physician subsequently assesses the patient and, if appropriate, places an order for administration of the standard sepsis treatment bundle.

In the administration of clinical trials, some open-label studies are cluster-randomized while others are randomized at an individual patient level. Cluster randomization is frequently used to minimize "contamination" between treatment and control groups, because exposure of providers to patients from both arms in an open-label study often invites unintentional behavioral biases. These biases may cause providers to adjust their interventions in the control group to mimic their actions in the experimental group, thereby masking the intervention's effect and skewing the study results towards the null. Although open-label, cluster-randomized trials are effective in minimizing contamination among groups, they have several significant disadvantages, including greater complexity in design and analysis as well as larger patient enrollment requirements to achieve the same statistical power. Because larger sample sizes often necessitate increases in cost, length, or complexity of a trial, current research has indicated that trialists should use individual randomization if possible due to the drawbacks of cluster allocation. Given these considerations, investigators concluded that individual randomization was the best strategy for the trial, as it affords a significant amount of increase in statistical power and allows each patient outcome to be assessed independently of every other patient. To minimize possible bias, investigators also decided to make the automated phone call text identical in both arms. The successful use of patient-level randomization in a previous sepsis clinical trial conducted by investigators gives confidence in this trial design.

After the discharge of the last enrolled patient, investigators will evaluate whether the primary endpoint of in-hospital SIRS-based mortality is met. Additional outcome measures of interest for each SIRS-based group will include: time to completion of each element of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) bundle; ventilator-free days; ICU days; and 30-day hospital readmission rate. The 1-hour SSC bundle consists of obtaining blood cultures, measuring lactate level, administering broad-spectrum antibiotics, administering 30 mL/kg of crystalloid fluid for hypertension or lactate >4 mmol/L, and applying vasopressors if patient is hypotensive during or after fluid resuscitation.

Investigators plan to draw from EHR-based clinical data for primary endpoint analysis, as opposed to claims-based data, due to its ability to provide more objective measurements on patient outcomes.

At the conclusion of the study, significant findings will be published as scientific papers.

02

Conditions studied

  • Sepsis
  • Severe Sepsis
  • Septic Shock

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Dascena
  • patient mortality
  • machine learning
  • algorithm
  • diagnostic
03

In context

Sepsis

1,899 studies on the registry are indexed under Sepsis; 462 are open to participants now.

Browse Sepsis studies →

Lead sponsor

Dascena is the lead sponsor of 14 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • During the study period, all patients over the age of 18 presenting to the emergency department or admitted to an inpatient unit at the participating facilities will automatically be enrolled in the trial, until the enrollment target for the study is met

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients under the age of 18
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator)
Enrollment
0 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Experimental

    The experimental arm will involve patients monitored by InSight.

    Diagnostic Test: InSight

  • No intervention
    Control

    The control arm will have no intervention and will involve patients with the usual standard of care.

Interventions

  • Diagnostic testInSight

    Clinical decision support (CDS) system for sepsis detection

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. In-hospital SIRS-based mortality

    Rate of mortality attributed to patients meeting two or more SIRS criteria at some point during their stay

    Time frame: Through study completion, an average of eight months

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Publications

  • Desautels T, Calvert J, Hoffman J, Mao Q, Jay M, Fletcher G, Barton C, Chettipally U, Kerem Y, Das R. Using Transfer Learning for Improved Mortality Prediction in a Data-Scarce Hospital Setting. Biomed Inform Insights. 2017 Jun 12;9:1178222617712994. doi: 10.1177/1178222617712994. eCollection 2017. PubMed 28638239 ↗
  • Calvert J, Mao Q, Rogers AJ, Barton C, Jay M, Desautels T, Mohamadlou H, Jan J, Das R. A computational approach to mortality prediction of alcohol use disorder inpatients. Comput Biol Med. 2016 Aug 1;75:74-9. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.05.015. Epub 2016 May 24. PubMed 27253619 ↗
  • Calvert JS, Price DA, Barton CW, Chettipally UK, Das R. Discharge recommendation based on a novel technique of homeostatic analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Jan;24(1):24-29. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw014. Epub 2016 Mar 28. PubMed 27026611 ↗
  • Calvert J, Mao Q, Hoffman JL, Jay M, Desautels T, Mohamadlou H, Chettipally U, Das R. Using electronic health record collected clinical variables to predict medical intensive care unit mortality. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2016 Sep 6;11:52-57. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.09.002. eCollection 2016 Nov. PubMed 27699003 ↗
  • Shimabukuro DW, Barton CW, Feldman MD, Mataraso SJ, Das R. Effect of a machine learning-based severe sepsis prediction algorithm on patient survival and hospital length of stay: a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2017 Nov 9;4(1):e000234. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2017-000234. eCollection 2017. PubMed 29435343 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 23, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03882476
Lead sponsor
Dascena
Collaborators
University of California, San Francisco
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 20, 2019
Start date
Jan 1, 2020 (estimated)
Primary completion
Feb 28, 2021 (estimated)
Completion
Feb 28, 2021 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 23, 2021

Study contacts

Ritankar Das, MSc
principal investigator · Dascena

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is withdrawn, as verified in Sep 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion