ArticlePloS one2024
A nomogram for predicting mortality risk within 30 days in sepsis patients admitted in the emergency department: A retrospective analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction models for mortality in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Establishing a nomogram of the risk of in-hospital mortality in children with suspected sepsis and validating the applicability of the Phoenix.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating the predictive power of lactate-to-albumin ratio on 30-day mortality among sepsis patients: a retrospective cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- CSN6 aggravates inflammation and Myocardial injury in macrophage of sepsis model by MIF.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The role of artificial intelligence in sepsis in the Emergency Department: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo establish and validate an individualized nomogram to predict mortality risk within 30 days in patients with sepsis from the emergency department.
methodsData of 1205 sepsis patients who were admitted to the emergency department in a tertiary hospital between Jun 2013 and Sep 2021 were collected and divided into a training group and a validation group at a ratio of 7:3. The independent risk factors related to 30-day mortality were identified by univariate and multivariate analysis in the training group and used to construct the nomogram. The model was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration chart and decision curve analysis. The model was validated in patients of the validation group and its performance was confirmed by comparing to other models based on SOFA score and machine learning methods.
resultsThe independent risk factors of 30-day mortality of sepsis patients included pro-brain natriuretic peptide, lactic acid, oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2), mean arterial pressure, and hematocrit. The AUCs of the nomogram in the training and verification groups were 0.820 (95% CI: 0.780-0.860) and 0.849 (95% CI: 0.783-0.915), respectively, and the respective P-values of the calibration chart were 0.996 and 0.955. The DCA curves of both groups were above the two extreme curves, indicating high clinical efficacy. The AUC values were 0.847 for the model established by the random forest method and 0.835 for the model established by the stacking method. The AUCs of SOFA model in the model and validation groups were 0.761 and 0.753, respectively.
conclusionThe sepsis nomogram can predict the risk of death within 30 days in sepsis patients with high accuracy, which will be helpful for clinical decision-making.
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.