Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37942414›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023

Speaking of sepsis: semantics, syntax, and slang.

Tim J J Inglis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. SepsisJournal of medical microbiology · 2025
    Review
  2. Unpacking the sepsis controversy.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025
    Review
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

1 author.

Tim J J InglisWestern Australian Country Health Service, Perth, WA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical language is in a constant state of evolution. Its grammar and vocabulary are not fixed by rigid rules. The interdisciplinary field of sepsis has become a meeting point for new insights arising from advances in systems biology, epidemiology, mechanistic understandings of disease process and antimicrobial interventions. This convergence has gained from our recent experience of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 and possibilities inferred from emerging information technology. Biomedical descriptors have diverged along disciplinary lines creating an unfortunate disconnect between clinical and laboratory-based terminology. The resulting confusion between clinically determined sepsis and laboratory verified bloodstream infection raises practical questions that affect daily operational processes in the ward, clinic and laboratory. There is an urgent need to understand how the clinical sepsis pathway and corresponding clinical laboratory workflow can be better aligned as a single coherent entity. There is also an implicit need to understand how this process should produce actionable information in a timely and orderly manner, and identify residual obselete terminology that has crept into common usage. A widely accepted sepsis epistemology, ontology and heuristic will help us improve our clinical management of sepsis.

Indexed as

bacteraemiabacterial bloodstream infectiondiagnosisimmunophenotypinglaboratory medicinemachine learning and AIsepsis

Identifiers

PMID37942414
PMCPMC10627927

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.