Efficiency of a Multi-step Screening and Enrichment Process for Prospective Sepsis Cohort Enrollment
- 1Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston, MA USA
Abstract
BackgroundHost response and biomarker research to advance sepsis therapeutics requires well-characterized cohorts with longitudinal biospecimens across a range of hosts and infections. Automated screening based on SIRS criteria is sensitive but nonspecific and identifies more candidates than research teams can approach, sample, and follow longitudinally. We evaluated a structured enrichment review by non-physician study staff, done after automated screening in a hospital-wide prospective sepsis cohort.
MethodsThe CISID cohort is a prospective observational study of hospitalized patients with suspected sepsis, enrolling adults from the ED, inpatient wards, and ICUs at a tertiary academic medical center. Patients were identified through: (1) automated electronic health record screening for two or more SIRS criteria with a 24-hour lookback, documentation of microbiologic culture or PCR, and receipt of a new antibiotic; (2) a sepsis enrichment step of structured chart review by trained non-physician study staff; and (3) discussion with the primary clinical team. Enrolled patients underwent physician adjudication into four diagnostic categories. To evaluate the enrichment step, we analyzed all patients screened during a 9-week period, assigned a composite "sepsis-likely" variable (CDC Adult Sepsis Event criteria or ICD-10 code R65.20/R65.21 within 48 hours before or after screening), and assessed mortality across each stage of screening. We also assessed concordance of the composite with physician adjudication among enrolled patients.
ResultsFrom November 2023 through February 2026, 4,318 patients screened in through EHR-based automated screening; 1,220 (28%) were flagged for enrollment, and 288 were enrolled. Physician adjudication classified 209 (73%) as sepsis, 46 (16%) as infection without sepsis, 14 (5%) were classified as undifferentiated critical illness, and 19 (6.6%) as non-infectious sepsis mimics. Patients with sepsis were severely ill (median SOFA score, 9; ICU admission, 80%; shock, 48%), and 51% were immunocompromised; mortality was 14% in hospital and 27% at 90 days. In a 9-week sample of 907 screened encounters, 21% of those deferred and 70% of those flagged for enrollment met the sepsis-likely composite, a 3.3-fold increase in prevalence after structured study team review.
ConclusionsA brief structured enrichment review after automated screening tripled the prevalence of EHR-based sepsis indicators among patients selected for enrollment, while concentrating enrollment efforts on roughly one-quarter of screened-in patients in this hospital-wide, all-source suspected-sepsis cohort. This approach may help prospective cohorts direct limited biospecimen resources toward patients most informative for host-response and biomarker research.
Related
- Serum Copper-to-Zinc and Copper-to-Selenium Ratios in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Possible Associations with Clinical Disease Activity and Endoscopic Healing in a Cross-Sectional Study with Prospective Enrollment
- Atrial Septal Aneurysm and Anxiety: A Matched Cross-Sectional Study with Prospective Enrollment Exploring Clinical and Psychosomatic Associations
- Antibody discovery from phage libraries lacking clear target-cell-selective enrichment through NGS-guided search space definition and cloning-free binding screening
- Safety and efficiency of the HEART-GP strategy with point-of-care high-sensitivity troponin testing for acute chest pain in out-of-hours primary care: a prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study
- A risk-stratified dynamic screening framework for age-related macular degeneration via a clustering-based partially observable markov decision process
BibTeX
@misc{cosimi2026efficiency,
title = {{Efficiency of a Multi-step Screening and Enrichment Process for Prospective Sepsis Cohort Enrollment}},
author = {L. A. Cosimi and W. Qi and S. Naz-McLean and K. Pan and S. Li and H. H. Laibinis and A. R. Rooney and C. Moran and G. C. Valentine and S. Hwang and J. Deguine and J. Pickard and D. T. Hung and A. E. Woolley},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.64898/2026.10.07.26364969},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.07.26364969v1},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Efficiency of a Multi-step Screening and Enrichment Process for Prospective Sepsis Cohort Enrollment
AU - L. A. Cosimi
AU - W. Qi
AU - S. Naz-McLean
AU - K. Pan
AU - S. Li
AU - H. H. Laibinis
AU - A. R. Rooney
AU - C. Moran
AU - G. C. Valentine
AU - S. Hwang
AU - J. Deguine
AU - J. Pickard
AU - D. T. Hung
AU - A. E. Woolley
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/07
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.10.07.26364969
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.07.26364969v1
AB - BackgroundHost response and biomarker research to advance sepsis therapeutics requires well-characterized cohorts with longitudinal biospecimens across a range of hosts and infections. Automated screening based on SIRS criteria is sensitive but nonspecific and identifies more candidates than research teams can approach, sample, and follow longitudinally. We evaluated a structured enrichment review by non-physician study staff, done after automated screening in a hospital-wide prospective sepsis cohort. MethodsThe CISID cohort is a prospective observational study of hospitalized patients with suspected sepsis, enrolling adults from the ED, inpatient wards, and ICUs at a tertiary academic medical center. Patients were identified through: (1) automated electronic health record screening for two or more SIRS criteria with a 24-hour lookback, documentation of microbiologic culture or PCR, and receipt of a new antibiotic; (2) a sepsis enrichment step of structured chart review by trained non-physician study staff; and (3) discussion with the primary clinical team. Enrolled patients underwent physician adjudication into four diagnostic categories. To evaluate the enrichment step, we analyzed all patients screened during a 9-week period, assigned a composite "sepsis-likely" variable (CDC Adult Sepsis Event criteria or ICD-10 code R65.20/R65.21 within 48 hours before or after screening), and assessed mortality across each stage of screening. We also assessed concordance of the composite with physician adjudication among enrolled patients. ResultsFrom November 2023 through February 2026, 4,318 patients screened in through EHR-based automated screening; 1,220 (28%) were flagged for enrollment, and 288 were enrolled. Physician adjudication classified 209 (73%) as sepsis, 46 (16%) as infection without sepsis, 14 (5%) were classified as undifferentiated critical illness, and 19 (6.6%) as non-infectious sepsis mimics. Patients with sepsis were severely ill (median SOFA score, 9; ICU admission, 80%; shock, 48%), and 51% were immunocompromised; mortality was 14% in hospital and 27% at 90 days. In a 9-week sample of 907 screened encounters, 21% of those deferred and 70% of those flagged for enrollment met the sepsis-likely composite, a 3.3-fold increase in prevalence after structured study team review. ConclusionsA brief structured enrichment review after automated screening tripled the prevalence of EHR-based sepsis indicators among patients selected for enrollment, while concentrating enrollment efforts on roughly one-quarter of screened-in patients in this hospital-wide, all-source suspected-sepsis cohort. This approach may help prospective cohorts direct limited biospecimen resources toward patients most informative for host-response and biomarker research.
ER -