Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37658375›Full record

Trial reportBMC surgery2023

Construction and validation of machine learning models for sepsis prediction in patients with acute pancreatitis.

Fei Liu, Jie Yao, Chunyan Liu, Songtao Shou

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic performance of machine-learning algorithms for sepsis prediction: An updated meta-analysis.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Artificial intelligence for early diagnosis in emergency department.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Early Sepsis Prediction: A Scoping Review.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fei LiuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin, 300052, P.R. China.
Jie YaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, 075000, P.R. China.
Chunyan LiuDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, 075000, P.R. China.
Songtao ShouDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin, 300052, P.R. China. zyyshou@tmu.edu.cn.
Hebei North University · CNTianjin Medical University General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to construct predictive models for the risk of sepsis in patients with Acute pancreatitis (AP) using machine learning methods and compared optimal one with the logistic regression (LR) model and scoring systems.

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, data were collected from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC III) database between 2001 and 2012 and the MIMIC IV database between 2008 and 2019. Patients were randomly divided into training and test sets (8:2). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression plus 5-fold cross-validation were used to screen and confirm the predictive factors. Based on the selected predictive factors, 6 machine learning models were constructed, including support vector machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbour (KNN), multi-layer perceptron (MLP), LR, gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) and adaptive enhancement algorithm (AdaBoost). The models and scoring systems were evaluated and compared using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and the area under the curve (AUC).

resultsA total of 1, 672 patients were eligible for participation. In the training set, 261 AP patients (19.51%) were diagnosed with sepsis. The predictive factors for the risk of sepsis in AP patients included age, insurance, vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, SpO2, platelet, red blood cell distribution width (RDW), International Normalized Ratio (INR), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN). The AUC of the GBDT model for sepsis prediction in the AP patients in the testing set was 0.985. The GBDT model showed better performance in sepsis prediction than the LR, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score, bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP) score, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, quick-SOFA (qSOFA), and simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II).

conclusionThe present findings suggest that compared to the classical LR model and SOFA, qSOFA, SAPS II, SIRS, and BISAP scores, the machine learning model-GBDT model had a better performance in predicting sepsis in the AP patients, which is a useful tool for early identification of high-risk patients and timely clinical interventions.

Indexed as

PancreatitisSepsisAcute DiseaseHumansRetrospective StudiesSystemic Inflammatory Response SyndromeAcute pancreatitisLogistic regression modelMachine learning modelsScoring systemssepsis

Identifiers

PMID37658375
PMCPMC10474758
OpenAlexW4386385597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.