DeepAISE -- An End-to-End Development and Deployment of a Recurrent Neural Survival Model for Early Prediction of Sepsis

Ashish Sharma; Christopher Josef; Shamim Nemati; Supreeth P. Shashikumar

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 references

DeepAISE -- An End-to-End Development and Deployment of a Recurrent Neural Survival Model for Early Prediction of Sepsis

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read DeepAISE predicts sepsis onset four hours ahead with AUC 0.90, and its counterfactual analysis suggests that giving antibiotics six hours earlier could improve survival by about 8%.

desk verdict Solid applied sepsis-prediction paper with strong AUCs and a real ATEE contribution, but the MIMIC 'external validation' is a second-site retrain and the label-feature overlap needs a stricter audit before the effect sizes are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04759 v1 pith:X42KCUWU submitted 2019-08-10 cs.LG stat.ML

Supreeth P. Shashikumar , Christopher Josef , Ashish Sharma , Shamim Nemati This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGstat.ML

keywords sepsispredictionrecurrentneuralnetworksurvivalanalysisWeibull-Coxproportionalhazardsclinicaldecisionsupportcounterfactualtreatmenteffectsinterpretablemachinelearning

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that sepsis onset in ICU patients can be predicted hours before it is clinically recognized, with enough accuracy and low enough false-alarm rates to be useful at the bedside, while still explaining each prediction in terms of the patient's own vital signs and labs. To do this, it trains a recurrent neural network on hourly clinical time series, feeds the learned trajectory representation into a survival model, and evaluates the system on an internal cohort and a separate external critical-care database. The stated result is an area under the ROC curve of 0.90 internally and 0.87 externally for predicting Sepsis-3 onset four hours ahead, with false-alarm rates of 0.20 and 0.26. The same counterfactual analysis is used to argue that administering antibiotics six hours before the Sepsis-3 onset time would have improved survival over the actual clinical policy by about 8.2%.

What carries the argument

The model is a two-layer stacked Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) followed by a fully connected layer whose output feeds a parametric Weibull-Cox proportional-hazards survival layer; the whole stack is trained end-to-end by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of time-to-sepsis with right-censored events. The Weibull-Cox layer defines the hazard as a baseline hazard times an exponentiated linear combination of learned trajectory features, allowing hourly survival probabilities and hence sepsis risk scores. Interpretability comes from relevance scores computed as the gradient of the risk score with respect to each input multiplied by the input value, then z-scored and thresholded to list the top contributing factors. For the label-selection question, the machinery is a generalized-propensity-score network plus an averaged dose-response network that estimates expected survival under counterfactual antibiotic timing intervals, with isotonic regression for calibration.

What would settle it

Retrain DeepAISE on the same internal cohort after removing the exact variables used in the Sepsis-3 label (PaO2, GCS, MAP, vasopressors, creatinine, bilirubin, platelets, and antibiotic and culture timestamps) and after strictly lagging all inputs so that no future value enters an hourly window. If the four-hour AUC stays near 0.90, the early-prediction claim holds; if it falls substantially, the original score was largely recognizing the Sepsis-3 rule rather than anticipating it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a time-to-event model built on recurrent neural representations can learn the temporal patterns and higher-order interactions among routine ICU measurements that precede sepsis, and that these learned representations outperform logistic regression, a plain Weibull-Cox model, and a feedforward neural network at every prediction horizon tested. The paper further claims that the choice of sepsis label matters: using counterfactual policy evaluation, the Sepsis-3 definition supports a clinically meaningful early-antibiotic policy, with an expected 8.2% improvement in survival when antibiotics are given six hours before onset, while an alternative CDC-style label does not support such a policy. DeepAISE also produces a local explanation for each hourly score by computing input-gradient relevance scores, and the paper argues that these local attributions reflect the actual drivers of individual predictions better than a global list of important features.

Load-bearing premise

The model's reported accuracy rests on the assumption that the SOFA components, antibiotic timestamps, and culture timestamps in its input stream do not already contain the information that defines the sepsis onset label; if future values leak into the prediction window, the AUCs overstate true early prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Hourly risk scores can be generated from routine EHR data starting four hours after ICU admission and remain discriminative out to a 12-hour horizon, so the method is deployable without high-resolution bedside monitors.
If the 8.2% attributable treatment effect estimate holds, a policy of acting on alerts six hours before Sepsis-3 onset could prevent a meaningful fraction of sepsis-related deaths, at the cost of treating patients whose alarms are false.
Because local relevance scores identify the physiology driving each alert, clinicians can use the explanation to decide whether an alert reflects infection, postoperative inflammation, or another deterioration.
The same GRU-survival architecture and label-selection procedure transfers to the external validation cohort with lower but still strong AUC, suggesting that the learned temporal features are not hospital-specific.
The separation between global and local feature importance implies that a one-size-fits-all explanation of a sepsis model is inadequate, so deployment tools should surface patient-specific contributors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A reader may infer that by monitoring which labs and vitals dominate local relevance scores, hospitals could schedule laboratory draws to refresh precisely those measurements, potentially improving model sensitivity without adding all measurements.
The paper's ATEE estimate assumes that the counterfactual antibiotics policy has no net harm from unnecessary treatment; because the false-alarm rate is around 20 to 26 percent, a reader should weigh possible antibiotic overuse and resistance before translating the 8.2% into expected population benefit.
The label-leakage concern is not fully settled by the delta-SOFA control: a more decisive test would retrain the model with all SOFA component variables and antibiotic and culture timestamps removed, and compare the AUC.
The same procedure of choosing a label definition by counterfactual policy value could be applied to other consensus-defined syndromes, such as acute kidney injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome, where onset-time definitions are similarly debated.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short take: DeepAISE is a genuine step forward for applied sepsis prediction. The GRU-Weibull-Cox architecture plus the ATEE comparison of Sepsis-3 vs. CDC labels is a real contribution, and the reported AUCs are strong. But the paper overstates external validation and leaves a load-bearing leakage question open.

The best parts: the architecture learns temporal representations end-to-end and the authors make a serious effort at interpretability, with saliency maps, local feature replacement, and a workflow UI. The delta-SOFA control (0.54 AUC) shows the model is not just a SOFA recapitulation, which is more than most sepsis ML papers do. The ATEE analysis is an interesting way to choose a label definition against a treatment policy.

Now the soft spots. The MIMIC section is described as external validation, and the abstract says external cohort, but the Methods explicitly say the model was trained and evaluated on both the Emory cohort and the MIMIC-III cohort separately. So MIMIC is a second-site retrain, not a test of the same model. That matters when you claim generalizability.

The bigger issue is label-feature overlap. tsepsis-3 depends on a two-point SOFA increase plus antibiotic/culture timestamps. If the 65 features include SOFA components or those treatment timestamps, and if last-observation-carried-forward does not strictly censor future values, the GRU could be learning the Sepsis-3 rule itself. The paper does not show an audit of feature processing at each hourly boundary. The delta-SOFA FFNN control uses only summary change scores, so it does not settle this. The question is not whether the model is cheating in the usual sense; it is whether early prediction is genuinely early or just spotting label components already present. The authors may be right that the model is legitimate, but the control is not strong enough to prove it.

One more minor concern: the ATEE 8.2% improvement is a model-based counterfactual from observational data, not a trial result. Worth saying once, but not a flaw if labeled as an estimate.

Bottom line: these are fixable concerns, not fatal ones. The paper deserves serious peer review, but reviewers should push for the full feature list, exact temporal handling, and a same-model external test. If the authors can show strict left-censoring and a model that does not see its own label components, the AUCs and the ATEE are a real contribution. I would bring it to our reading group and would cite it, but with the second-site retrain caveat attached.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents DeepAISE, an end-to-end recurrent neural survival model for early prediction of sepsis onset in ICU patients. The model combines a two-layer GRU with a Weibull-Cox proportional hazards layer and is trained on hourly EHR data to predict tsepsis-3 (the Sepsis-3 onset time) at horizons of 2–12 hours. The authors report AUCs of 0.90 (Emory internal test) and 0.87 (MIMIC-III) at a fixed sensitivity of 0.85, with corresponding false-alarm rates of 0.20 and 0.26, outperforming logistic regression, Weibull-Cox, and feedforward baselines. They also introduce an ATEE (attributable treatment effect) framework to compare sepsis labeling criteria and claim that treating patients with antibiotics six hours before tsepsis-3 would yield an 8.2% [7.4, 9.9] improvement in survival. The paper additionally describes an interpretability mechanism (saliency-based relevance scores), a low-dimensional patient trajectory visualization, and a deployed tele-ICU decision-support workflow.

Significance. If the central claims survive scrutiny, this is a substantial contribution to clinical machine learning. Strengths include: (1) evaluation in a sequential-prediction design with real-world prevalence, rather than case-control enrichment, which is methodologically more realistic; (2) comparison against multiple baselines with DeLong significance testing; (3) a concrete deployment narrative including a web-based demo; (4) a concrete attempt at clinically meaningful interpretability via per-prediction feature relevance; and (5) a novel use of counterfactual treatment-effect estimation to compare sepsis labeling criteria. The paper also leverages a large internal cohort (25,820 admissions) and a public external dataset. However, the generalizability claim is weakened because the MIMIC-III model was retrained on MIMIC-III rather than evaluated as a true external transfer, and the headline accuracy depends on the input features having no temporal leakage with respect to the Sepsis-3 label definition. The ATEE-derived clinical recommendation also requires the intervention to be well-defined when the treatment time is itself part of the label definition.

major comments (3)

[Materials and Methods, 'Study design'; Table 3] The MIMIC-III result is not a true external validation. The manuscript states: 'The DeepAISE model was trained and evaluated on both the Emory cohort and the MIMIC-III external validation cohort separately.' Since the model was retrained on MIMIC, the MIMIC AUC of 0.87 demonstrates reproducibility across institutions, but not external validity in the usual sense of applying a fixed model to a new population. The abstract and Results claim 'external validation' is therefore overstated. Please either report the AUC of the Emory-trained model applied directly to MIMIC without retraining, or rephrase the claim as 'reproduced in a second cohort.'
[Results, 'DeepAISE prediction performance for sepsis onset'; Appendix C; Table 1] The central early-prediction claim is vulnerable to label-feature overlap. tsepsis-3 is defined by a two-point SOFA increase within a 6-hour window plus tsuspicion, which is derived from antibiotic and blood-culture order timestamps. The model inputs are 65 EHR features whose full list is deferred to Appendix C, and the main text does not demonstrate that every hourly feature vector is strictly left-censored at the time of prediction. If SOFA components (PaO2, GCS, MAP, vasopressors, creatinine, bilirubin, platelets), antibiotic/culture timestamps, or last-observation-carried-forward values after the prediction boundary enter the input, a GRU can learn the Sepsis-3 rule itself. The delta-SOFA FFNN control (AUC 0.54) does not resolve this because it feeds only a summary score, not the full temporal feature sequence the GRU sees. Please provide a feature-by-feature temporal audit, explicitly listing each of the 65 features, how it is computed at prediction time, and how any future values are excluded; and add a control experiment that feeds the actual SOFA components and antibiotic/culture times to the same GRU-FFNN-WCPH architecture to show that the model outperforms this direct label-reconstruction oracle.
[Methods, 'Attributable treatment effect estimates (ATEE)'; Table 2] The ATEE counterfactual 'antibiotics six hours before tsepsis-3' is not well-defined because tsepsis-3 depends on tsuspicion, which is defined from antibiotic and culture order times. An intervention that administers antibiotics earlier will itself alter tsuspicion and therefore tsepsis-3, changing the label used to anchor the counterfactual. This creates a potential circularity in the causal estimand. The 8.2% [7.4, 9.9] improvement claim therefore requires either a sensitivity analysis under an alternative label definition that fixes the infection-suspicion time independently of treatment timing, or a clear causal model of how the intervention affects the label. At minimum, please discuss this endogeneity and present an analysis with tsepsis-CDC or a SOFA-only onset definition as a robustness check.

minor comments (4)

[Figure 4B caption] There is a typo: 'negative relavance score' should be 'negative relevance score'.
[Methods, Eq. (1)] The sentence after Eq. (1) reads 'on the right-hand-side of the question'; this should be 'of the equation'.
[Table 1] The definition of tsepsis-3 says 'The earlier of the tSOFA or tsuspicion was assigned to tsepsis,' but the proximity condition 'tSOFA + 24 hours > tsuspicion > tSOFA - 12 hours' is asymmetric and does not uniquely determine which is 'earlier' in all cases. Please clarify the exact assignment rule, including whether the earlier time point is used or whether tSOFA is the anchor.
[Results, 'DeepAISE prediction performance for sepsis onset'] The manuscript reports AUC on the Emory year-based holdout (0.88) but does not state whether this holdout overlaps with the main Emory testing set. Please clarify the relationship between the year-based split and the 70/10/20 split.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No demonstrated circularity: DeepAISE predicts a future label from earlier hour-binned features, and the ATEE analysis is a separate causal estimate.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the survival-model objective: each hourly window uses features x collected at time t and is labeled positive only if the Sepsis-3 event falls in the future horizon (tau is the duration from feature collection to event). The target tsepsis-3 is thus not an input transformed into an output by construction. The fact that some input features (e.g., PaO2, GCS, MAP) are components of the SOFA score used to define the label is a potential feature-label overlap, but the paper's event-window definition implies left-censoring, and no quoted preprocessing step or equation admits post-prediction SOFA components or antibiotic/culture timestamps into x; a leakage audit would be a correctness issue, not a circular reduction. The delta-SOFA FFNN control (AUC 0.54/0.68) is a weak ablation, but weakness of a control is not circularity. The WCPH component is cited to prior work by the same group (ref. 16), but the model is specified in Eq. 2 and evaluated against independent baselines and MIMIC-III external validation, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The ATEE survival estimates are standard counterfactual predictions from fitted GPS/ADRF models, not predictions of the same fitted quantities. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central prediction rests on a clinical label that is a function of input features (SOFA components), on proportional hazards and no-confounding assumptions for the survival and causal analyses, and on a post-hoc exclusion rule. The hyperparameters are legitimate model selection choices, but they are fitted to the validation set and are not independently derived.

free parameters (6)

GRU hidden state size = 100 per layer (2 layers)
Determines model capacity for temporal representations; chosen by Bayesian optimization on a validation set.
Learning rate = 1e-2
Adam optimizer step size, tuned on validation set.
L1 regularization weight = 1e-5
Regularization strength, tuned on validation set.
L2 regularization weight = 1e-3
Regularization strength, tuned on validation set.
Mini-batch composition = 1000 patients per batch, 90% controls / 10% septic
Class-balancing choice made by the authors; not standard random sampling, may affect calibration and AUC.
Number of epochs = 200
Training duration, chosen with early stopping not reported.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Sepsis-3 criterion defines the ground truth onset time for the prediction label.
The label tsepsis-3 is an acausal clinical construct requiring a 2-point SOFA increase plus suspicion of infection; the paper itself notes it cannot be used clinically for early detection.
domain assumption SOFA component values are valid input features for predicting the SOFA-based label.
Input features include PaO2, GCS, MAP, vasopressors, creatinine, bilirubin, and platelets, which are exactly the components of SOFA; this creates overlap between features and label definition.
domain assumption The proportional hazards assumption of the Weibull-Cox model holds for sepsis onset.
The model uses a Weibull baseline hazard and a proportional hazards form; if sepsis risk is not proportional over time, the likelihood model may be misspecified.
domain assumption Generalized propensity score assumptions: no unmeasured confounding, positivity, and correct model specification.
The ATEE estimates of treatment effects rely on these untestable assumptions to interpret associations between antibiotic timing and survival causally.
ad hoc to paper Exclusion of patients with ICU length of stay greater than 20 days is valid.
The study excludes stays over 20 days without a sensitivity analysis; this post-hoc rule may bias the cohort toward shorter, less complex stays.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DeepAISE -- An End-to-End Development and Deployment of a Recurrent Neural Survival Model for Early Prediction of Sepsis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X42KCUWU

@misc{pith2026190804759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DeepAISE -- An End-to-End Development and Deployment of a Recurrent Neural Survival Model for Early Prediction of Sepsis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X42KCUWU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04759}
}

read the original abstract

Sepsis, a dysregulated immune system response to infection, is among the leading causes of morbidity, mortality, and cost overruns in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Early prediction of sepsis can improve situational awareness amongst clinicians and facilitate timely, protective interventions. While the application of predictive analytics in ICU patients has shown early promising results, much of the work has been encumbered by high false-alarm rates. Efforts to improve specificity have been limited by several factors, most notably the difficulty of labeling sepsis onset time and the low prevalence of septic-events in the ICU. Here, we present DeepAISE (Deep Artificial Intelligence Sepsis Expert), a recurrent neural survival model for the early prediction of sepsis. We show that by coupling a clinical criterion for defining sepsis onset time with a treatment policy (e.g., initiation of antibiotics within one hour of meeting the criterion), one may rank the relative utility of various criteria through offline policy evaluation. Given the optimal criterion, DeepAISE automatically learns predictive features related to higher-order interactions and temporal patterns among clinical risk factors that maximize the data likelihood of observed time to septic events. DeepAISE has been incorporated into a clinical workflow, which provides real-time hourly sepsis risk scores. A comparative study of four baseline models indicates that DeepAISE produces the most accurate predictions (AUC=0.90 and 0.87) and the lowest false alarm rates (FAR=0.20 and 0.26) in two separate cohorts (internal and external, respectively), while simultaneously producing interpretable representations of the clinical time series and risk factors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04759 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Comparison of DeepAISE performance on Emory testing set for prediction horizons of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 hours. Comparison of DeepAISE performance with other baseline models. DeepAISE = Deep Artificial Intelligence Sepsis Expert LR = Logistic Regression FFNN = Feedforward Neural Network WCPH = Weibull Cox Proportional Hazard layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A clinically interpretable example of DeepAISE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Visualization of DeepAISE time series covariates performed by spectral clustering. The linear trajectory of the DeepAISE score for 2 septic patients from ICU admission until sepsis diagnosis is displayed below a larger manifold that makes use of spectral clustering to visually display a patient’s physiologic journey through their illness (each point on the graph represents one hour of data from one patient). The col… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Most common features contributing to an elevated risk score. (A) Every hour DeepAISE identifies the top features contributing to an individual septic patient’s risk score. The left subfigure demonstrates the frequency of the top ten dynamic features (ordered according …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Block diagram of the DeepAISE software platform. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Screenshot of the clinician facing DeepAISE UI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[10]

C. M. DesRoches, E. G. Campbell, S. R. Rao, K. Donelan, T. G. Ferris, A. Jha, R. Kaushal, D. E. Levy, S. Rosenbaum, A. E. Shields, Electronic health records in ambulatory care—a national survey of physicians, New England Journal of Medicine 359, 50–60 (2008). 11. T. Desautels, J. Calvert, J. Hoffman, M. Jay, Y. Kerem, L. Shieh, D. Shimabukuro, U. Chettipa...

work page 2008
[17]

K. E. Henry, D. N. Hager, P. J. Pronovost, S. Saria, A targeted real-time early warning score (TREWScore) for septic shock, Science Translational Medicine 7, 299ra122-299ra122 (2015). 18. C. Lin, Y. Zhangy, J. Ivy, M. Capan, R. Arnold, J. M. Huddleston, M. Chi, Early diagnosis and prediction of sepsis shock by combining static and dynamic information usin...

work page 2015
[24]

R. C. Bone, R. A. Balk, F. B. Cerra, R. P. Dellinger, A. M. Fein, W. A. Knaus, R. M. Schein, W. J. Sibbald, Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine, Chest 101, 1644–1655 (1992)....

arXiv 1992
[37]

A. H. Carneiro, P. Póvoa, J. A. Gomes, Dear Sepsis-3, we are sorry to say that we don’t like you, Rev Bras Ter Intensiva 29, 4–8 (2017). 38. S. K. Gadre, M. Shah, E. Mireles-Cabodevila, B. Patel, A. Duggal, Epidemiology and predictors of 30-day readmission in patients with sepsis, Chest 155, 483–490 (2019). 39. M. Shankar-Hari, G. D. Rubenfeld, Understand...

arXiv 2017
[46]

Snoek, H

J. Snoek, H. Larochelle, R. P. Adams, Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2951–2959 (2012). 47. T. E. Oliphant, A guide to NumPy (Trelgol Publishing USA, 2006). 48. M. Abadi, P. Barham, J. Chen, Z. Chen, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, G. Irving, M. Isard, Tensorflow...

work page 2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

C. M. DesRoches, E. G. Campbell, S. R. Rao, K. Donelan, T. G. Ferris, A. Jha, R. Kaushal, D. E. Levy, S. Rosenbaum, A. E. Shields, Electronic health records in ambulatory care—a national survey of physicians, New England Journal of Medicine 359, 50–60 (2008). 11. T. Desautels, J. Calvert, J. Hoffman, M. Jay, Y. Kerem, L. Shieh, D. Shimabukuro, U. Chettipa...

work page 2008

[2] [17]

K. E. Henry, D. N. Hager, P. J. Pronovost, S. Saria, A targeted real-time early warning score (TREWScore) for septic shock, Science Translational Medicine 7, 299ra122-299ra122 (2015). 18. C. Lin, Y. Zhangy, J. Ivy, M. Capan, R. Arnold, J. M. Huddleston, M. Chi, Early diagnosis and prediction of sepsis shock by combining static and dynamic information usin...

work page 2015

[3] [24]

R. C. Bone, R. A. Balk, F. B. Cerra, R. P. Dellinger, A. M. Fein, W. A. Knaus, R. M. Schein, W. J. Sibbald, Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine, Chest 101, 1644–1655 (1992)....

arXiv 1992

[4] [37]

A. H. Carneiro, P. Póvoa, J. A. Gomes, Dear Sepsis-3, we are sorry to say that we don’t like you, Rev Bras Ter Intensiva 29, 4–8 (2017). 38. S. K. Gadre, M. Shah, E. Mireles-Cabodevila, B. Patel, A. Duggal, Epidemiology and predictors of 30-day readmission in patients with sepsis, Chest 155, 483–490 (2019). 39. M. Shankar-Hari, G. D. Rubenfeld, Understand...

arXiv 2017

[5] [46]

Snoek, H

J. Snoek, H. Larochelle, R. P. Adams, Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2951–2959 (2012). 47. T. E. Oliphant, A guide to NumPy (Trelgol Publishing USA, 2006). 48. M. Abadi, P. Barham, J. Chen, Z. Chen, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, G. Irving, M. Isard, Tensorflow...

work page 2012