ArticleCritical care explorations2019
Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record-based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicenter Prospective Validation of an Updated Proprietary Sepsis Prediction Model.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Rethinking sepsis prediction in the era of large language models.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Sepsis and septic shock case identification from electronic health records: an open-source workflow and comparison of cohorts by criteria.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Augmented Triage for Sepsis: Real-Time ICU Mortality Prediction Using SHAP-Explained Meta-Ensemble Models.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Methicillin-resistantJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025Article
- Evaluating the impact of common clinical confounders on performance of deep-learning-based sepsis risk assessment.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Early Warning Systems for Critical Illness Outside the Intensive Care Unit.Critical care clinics · 2024Review
- Hospital-Onset Sepsis Warrants Expanded Investigation and Consideration as a Unique Clinical Entity.Chest · 2024Review
- Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Defining Posttraumatic Sepsis for Population-Level Research.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Disparate Censorship & Undertesting: A Source of Label Bias in Clinical Machine Learning.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2022Article
- Human-machine teaming is key to AI adoption: clinicians' experiences with a deployed machine learning system.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
- Prospective, multi-site study of patient outcomes after implementation of the TREWS machine learning-based early warning system for sepsis.Nature medicine · 2022Article
- Surveillance Strategies for Tracking Sepsis Incidence and Outcomes.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To develop and evaluate a novel strategy that automates the retrospective identification of sepsis using electronic health record data.
designRetrospective cohort study of emergency department and in-hospital patient encounters from 2014 to 2018.
settingOne community and two academic hospitals in Maryland. PATIENTS: All patients 18 years old or older presenting to the emergency department or admitted to any acute inpatient medical or surgical unit including patients discharged from the emergency department.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsFrom the electronic health record, 233,252 emergency department and inpatient encounters were identified. Patient data were used to develop and validate electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping, an adaptation of "the Centers for Disease Control Adult Sepsis Event toolkit" that accounts for comorbid conditions when identifying sepsis patients. The performance of this novel system was then compared with 1) physician case review and 2) three other commonly used strategies using metrics of sensitivity and precision relative to sepsis billing codes, termed "billing code sensitivity" and "billing code predictive value." Physician review of electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping identified cases confirmed 79% as having sepsis; 88% were confirmed or had a billing code for sepsis; and 99% were confirmed, had a billing code, or received at least 4 days of antibiotics. At comparable billing code sensitivity (0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93), electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping had a higher billing code predictive value (0.32; 95% CI, 0.30-0.34) than either the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Sepsis Core Measure (SEP-1) definition or the Sepsis-3 consensus definition (0.12; 95% CI, 0.11-0.13; and 0.07; 95% CI, 0.07-0.08, respectively). When compared with electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping, Adult Sepsis Event had a lower billing code sensitivity (0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.78) and similar billing code predictive value (0.29; 95% CI, 0.26-0.31). Electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping identified patients with higher in-hospital mortality and nearly one-half as many false-positive cases when compared with SEP-1 and Sepsis-3.
conclusionsBy accounting for comorbid conditions, electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping exhibited better performance when compared with other automated definitions of sepsis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.