Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33875337›Full record

ReviewIntensive & critical care nursing2021

Physiological machine learning models for prediction of sepsis in hospitalized adults: An integrative review.

Sherry L Kausch, J Randall Moorman, Douglas E Lake, Jessica Keim-Malpass

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Intensive & critical care nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Machine Learning for Predicting Stillbirth: A Systematic Review.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sherry L KauschUniversity of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, VA, USA; University of Virginia Center for Advanced Medical Analytics, Charlottesville, VA, USA; School of Data Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. Electronic address: slk7s@virginia.edu.
J Randall MoormanUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Charlottesville, VA, USA; University of Virginia Center for Advanced Medical Analytics, Charlottesville, VA, USA. Electronic address: rm3h@virginia.edu.
Douglas E LakeUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Charlottesville, VA, USA; University of Virginia Center for Advanced Medical Analytics, Charlottesville, VA, USA. Electronic address: del2k@virginia.edu.
Jessica Keim-MalpassUniversity of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, VA, USA; University of Virginia Center for Advanced Medical Analytics, Charlottesville, VA, USA. Electronic address: jlk2t@virginia.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnosing sepsis remains challenging. Data compiled from continuous monitoring and electronic health records allow for new opportunities to compute predictions based on machine learning techniques. There has been a lack of consensus identifying best practices for model development and validation towards early identification of sepsis.

objectiveTo evaluate the modeling approach and statistical methodology of machine learning prediction models for sepsis in the adult hospital population.

methodsPubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guided protocol development. We evaluated studies that developed or validated physiologic sepsis prediction models or implemented a model in the hospital environment.

resultsFourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and the AUROC of the prediction models ranged from 0.61 to 0.96. We found a variety of sepsis definitions, methods used for event adjudication, model parameters used, and modeling methods. Two studies tested models in clinical settings; the results suggested that patient outcomes were improved with implementation of machine learning models.

conclusionNurses have a unique perspective to offer in the development and implementation of machine learning models detecting patients at risk for sepsis. More work is needed in developing model harmonization standards and testing in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSepsisAdultHumansMachine learningPredictive analyticsRisk predictionSepsis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.