ArticleScientific reports2021
An approach to rapidly assess sepsis through multi-biomarker host response using machine learning algorithm.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Predicting sepsis prognosis using deep learning with routine biomarkers.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Early biomarkers for predicting sepsis-induced shock: insights from inflammatory pathways and immune response.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Transforming cytokine diagnostics: AI, multiplexing, and point-of-care biosensing technologies.Mikrochimica acta · 2025Review
- USENSE: A proof-of-concept self-screening tool for home-based recurrent urinary tract infection management.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2025Article
- Advancements in Breathomics: Special Focus on Electrochemical Sensing and AI for Chronic Disease Diagnosis and Monitoring.ACS omega · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-powered electrochemical sensor: Recent advances, challenges, and prospects.Heliyon · 2024Review
- AI in cellular engineering and reprogramming.Biophysical journal · 2024Review
- Identifying Effective Biomarkers for Accurate Pancreatic Cancer Prognosis Using Statistical Machine Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Decoding Sepsis-Induced Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation: A Comprehensive Review of Existing and Emerging Therapies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Speaking of sepsis: semantics, syntax, and slang.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Wearable chemical sensors for biomarker discovery in the omics era.Nature reviews. Chemistry · 2022Review
- Machine learning approaches for biomolecular, biophysical, and biomaterials research.Biophysics reviews · 2022Review
- A prospective observational cohort study to identify inflammatory biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with sepsis.Journal of intensive care · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted phenotyping of sepsis: Research progress, clinical challenges, and translational prospects.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis is a life-threatening condition and understanding the disease pathophysiology through the use of host immune response biomarkers is critical for patient stratification. Lack of accurate sepsis endotyping impedes clinicians from making timely decisions alongside insufficiencies in appropriate sepsis management. This work aims to demonstrate the potential feasibility of a data-driven validation model for supporting clinical decisions to predict sepsis host-immune response. Herein, we used a machine learning approach to determine the predictive potential of identifying sepsis host immune response for patient stratification by combining multiple biomarker measurements from a single plasma sample. Results were obtained using the following cytokines and chemokines IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IP-10 and TRAIL where the test dataset was 70%. Supervised machine learning algorithm naïve Bayes and decision tree algorithm showed good accuracy of 96.64% and 94.64%. These promising findings indicate the proposed AI approach could be a valuable testing resource for promoting clinical decision making.
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.