Trial reportMedicine2022
A prediction model for 30-day mortality of sepsis patients based on intravenous fluids and electrolytes.
Trial report in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Models for Mortality and Outcome Prediction in Intensive Care Unit Sepsis: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Liberal Versus Restrictive Fluid Therapy in the Early Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To establish a prediction model for the 30-day mortality in sepsis patients. The data of 1185 sepsis patients were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) and all participants were randomly divided into the training set (n = 829) and the testing set (n = 356). The model was established in the training set and verified in the testing set. After standardization of the data, age, gender, input, output, and variables with statistical difference between the survival group and the death group in the training set were involved in the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model. Subgroup analysis was performed concerning age and gender in the testing set. In the XGBoost model with variables related to intravenous (IV) fluid management and electrolytes for the 30-day mortality of sepsis patients, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.868 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.867-0.869) in the training set and 0.781 (95% CI: 0.779-0.782) in the testing set. The sensitivity was 0.815 (95% CI: 0.774-0.857) in the training set and 0.755 (95% CI: 0.686-0.825) in the testing set. The specificity was 0.761 (95% CI: 0.723-0.798) in the training set, and 0.737 (95% CI: 0.677-0.797) in the testing set. In the XGBoost forest model without variables related to IV fluid management and electrolytes for the 30-day mortality of sepsis patients, in the training set, the AUC was 0.830 (95% CI: 0.829-0.831), the sensitivity was 0.717 (95% CI: 0.669-0.765), the specificity was 0.797 (95% CI: 0.762-0.833), and the accuracy was 0.765 (95% CI: 0.736-0.794). In the testing set, the AUC was 0.751 (95% CI: 0.750-0.753), the sensitivity was 0.612 (95% CI: 0.533-0.691), the specificity was 0.756 (95% CI: 0.698-0.814), and the accuracy was 0.697(95% CI: 0.649-0.744). The prediction model including variables associated with IV fluids and electrolytes had good predictive value for the 30-day mortality of sepsis 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.