Observational studyPloS one2021
Clinical factors associated with rapid treatment of sepsis.
Observational study in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reassessing the promise of NGS in sepsis diagnosis: overcoming scalability barriers.Future microbiology · 2025Article
- Bundle compliance patterns in septic shock and their association with patient outcomes: an unsupervised cluster analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Sepsis Management: An Overview for Clinicians.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Prospective observational pilot study of the T2Resistance panel in the T2Dx system for detection of resistance genes in bacterial bloodstream infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Observational
- Development and Validation of an Insulin Resistance Model for a Population with Chronic Kidney Disease Using a Machine Learning Approach.Nutrients · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo understand what clinical presenting features of sepsis patients are historically associated with rapid treatment involving antibiotics and fluids, as appropriate.
designThis was a retrospective, observational cohort study using a machine-learning model with an embedded feature selection mechanism (gradient boosting machine).
methodsFor adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) who were admitted through Emergency Department (ED) meeting clinical criteria of severe sepsis from 11/2007 to 05/2018 at an urban tertiary academic medical center, we developed gradient boosting models (GBMs) using a total of 760 original and derived variables, including demographic variables, laboratory values, vital signs, infection diagnosis present on admission, and historical comorbidities. We identified the most impactful factors having strong association with rapid treatment, and further applied the Shapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) values to examine the marginal effects for each factor.
resultsFor the subgroups with or without fluid bolus treatment component, the models achieved high accuracy of area-under-receiver-operating-curve of 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.95] and 0.84 [95% CI, 0.81-0.86], and sensitivity of 0.81[95% CI, 0.72-0.87] and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.81-0.97], respectively. We identified the 20 most impactful factors associated with rapid treatment for each subgroup. In the non-hypotensive subgroup, initial physiological values were the most impactful to the model, while in the fluid bolus subgroup, value minima and maxima tended to be the most impactful.
conclusionThese machine learning methods identified factors associated with rapid treatment of severe sepsis patients from a large volume of high-dimensional clinical data. The results provide insight into differences in the rapid provision of treatment among patients with 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.