ArticleScientific reports2024
Subtle variation in sepsis-III definitions markedly influences predictive performance within and across methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical predictive artificial intelligence evaluation: A narrative review of trial designs and practical considerations.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- ABC'S of AI: proposing a clinician's framework for the interpretation of artificial intelligence studies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Mitigating antimicrobial resistance by innovative solutions in AI (MARISA): a modified James Lind Alliance analysis.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2025Article
- The Potential of Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Sepsis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early detection of sepsis is key to ensure timely clinical intervention. Since very few end-to-end pipelines are publicly available, fair comparisons between methodologies are difficult if not impossible. Progress is further limited by discrepancies in the reconstruction of sepsis onset time. This retrospective cohort study highlights the variation in performance of predictive models under three subtly different interpretations of sepsis onset from the sepsis-III definition and compares this against inter-model differences. The models are chosen to cover tree-based, deep learning, and survival analysis methods. Using the MIMIC-III database, between 867 and 2178 intensive care unit admissions with sepsis were identified, depending on the onset definition. We show that model performance can be more sensitive to differences in the definition of sepsis onset than to the model itself. Given a fixed sepsis definition, the best performing method had a gain of 1-5% in the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). However, the choice of onset time can cause a greater effect, with variation of 0-6% in AUROC. We illustrate that misleading conclusions can be drawn if models are compared without consideration of the sepsis definition used which emphasizes the need for a standardized definition for sepsis onset.
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.