ArticleBMC emergency medicine2021
Predicting mortality among septic patients presenting to the emergency department-a cross sectional analysis using machine learning.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence for Sepsis Prediction in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2026Pooled it
- Prediction models for mortality in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Sepsis mortality prediction using machine learning and deep learning - a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Improving triage performance in emergency departments using machine learning and natural language processing: a systematic review.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis-related death: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Pooled it
- Machine learning techniques for mortality prediction in emergency departments: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- The role of artificial intelligence in sepsis in the Emergency Department: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- A comparative study of explainable ensemble learning and logistic regression for predicting in-hospital mortality in the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Development of a Clinical Score for Predicting 28-Day Mortality in Geriatric Sepsis Patients; a Cohort study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is a life-threatening condition, causing almost one fifth of all deaths worldwide. The aim of the current study was to identify variables predictive of 7- and 30-day mortality among variables reflective of the presentation of septic patients arriving to the emergency department (ED) using machine learning.
methodsRetrospective cross-sectional design, including all patients arriving to the ED at Södersjukhuset in Sweden during 2013 and discharged with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code corresponding to sepsis. All predictions were made using a Balanced Random Forest Classifier and 91 variables reflecting ED presentation. An exhaustive search was used to remove unnecessary variables in the final model. A 10-fold cross validation was performed and the accuracy was described using the mean value of the following: AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, positive LR and negative LR.
resultsThe study population included 445 septic patients, randomised to a training (n = 356, 80%) and a validation set (n = 89, 20%). The six most important variables for predicting 7-day mortality were: "fever", "abnormal verbal response", "low saturation", "arrival by emergency medical services (EMS)", "abnormal behaviour or level of consciousness" and "chills". The model including these variables had an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86). The final model predicting 30-day mortality used similar six variables, however, including "breathing difficulties" instead of "abnormal behaviour or level of consciousness". This model achieved an AUC = 0.80 (CI 95%, 0.78-0.82).
conclusionsThe results suggest that six specific variables were predictive of 7- and 30-day mortality with good accuracy which suggests that these symptoms, observations and mode of arrival may be important components to include along with vital signs in a future prediction tool of mortality among septic patients presenting to the ED. In addition, the Random Forests appears to be a suitable machine learning method on which to build future studies.
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.