ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Comparison between machine learning methods for mortality prediction for sepsis patients with different social determinants.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Unmasking bias in artificial intelligence: a systematic review of bias detection and mitigation strategies in electronic health record-based models.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 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
- Letter to editor about prediction of sepsis among patients with major trauma using artificial intelligence: a multicenter validated cohort study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Evaluating sepsis watch generalizability through multisite external validation of a sepsis machine learning model.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Association of Racial Residential Segregation and Survival After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in the United States.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Observational
- User-Oriented Requirements for Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems in Sepsis: Protocol for a Multimethod Research Project.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Seeing the random forest through the decision trees. Supporting learning health systems from histopathology with machine learning models: Challenges and opportunities.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Review
- Northwestern University resource and education development initiatives to advance collaborative artificial intelligence across the learning health system.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Transportability of bacterial infection prediction models for critically ill patients.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is one of the most life-threatening circumstances for critically ill patients in the United States, while diagnosis of sepsis is challenging as a standardized criteria for sepsis identification is still under development. Disparities in social determinants of sepsis patients can interfere with the risk prediction performances using machine learning.
methodsWe analyzed a cohort of critical care patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III database. Disparities in social determinants, including race, sex, marital status, insurance types and languages, among patients identified by six available sepsis criteria were revealed by forest plots with 95% confidence intervals. Sepsis patients were then identified by the Sepsis-3 criteria. Sixteen machine learning classifiers were trained to predict in-hospital mortality for sepsis patients on a training set constructed by random selection. The performance was measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The performance of the trained model was tested on the entire randomly conducted test set and each sub-population built based on each of the following social determinants: race, sex, marital status, insurance type, and language. The fluctuations in performances were further examined by permutation tests.
resultsWe analyzed a total of 11,791 critical care patients from the MIMIC-III database. Within the population identified by each sepsis identification method, significant differences were observed among sub-populations regarding race, marital status, insurance type, and language. On the 5783 sepsis patients identified by the Sepsis-3 criteria statistically significant performance decreases for mortality prediction were observed when applying the trained machine learning model on Asian and Hispanic patients, as well as the Spanish-speaking patients. With pairwise comparison, we detected performance discrepancies in mortality prediction between Asian and White patients, Asians and patients of other races, as well as English-speaking and Spanish-speaking patients.
conclusionsDisparities in proportions of patients identified by various sepsis criteria were detected among the different social determinant groups. The performances of mortality prediction for sepsis patients can be compromised when applying a universally trained model for each subpopulation. To achieve accurate diagnosis, a versatile diagnostic system for sepsis is needed to overcome the social determinant disparities of patients.
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.