ArticleScientific reports2024
Development and validation of an interpretable model for predicting sepsis mortality across care settings.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A tri-omics and machine learning framework identifies prognostic biomarkers and metabolic signatures in sepsis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Early Diagnostic Markers and Risk Stratification in Sepsis: Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, Platelets, and the Carmeli Score.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Predicting prognosis of sepsis in patients based on right ventricular strain imaging development and validation of a nomogram model.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are numerous prognostic predictive models for evaluating mortality risk, but current scoring models might not fully cater to sepsis patients' needs. This study developed and validated a new model for sepsis patients that is suitable for any care setting and accurately forecasts 28-day mortality. The derivation dataset, gathered from 20 hospitals between September 2019 and December 2021, contrasted with the validation dataset, collected from 15 hospitals from January 2022 to December 2022. In this study, 7436 patients were classified as members of the derivation dataset, and 2284 patients were classified as members of the validation dataset. The point system model emerged as the optimal model among the tested predictive models for foreseeing sepsis mortality. For community-acquired sepsis, the model's performance was satisfactory (derivation dataset AUC: 0.779, 95% CI 0.765-0.792; validation dataset AUC: 0.787, 95% CI 0.765-0.810). Similarly, for hospital-acquired sepsis, it performed well (derivation dataset AUC: 0.768, 95% CI 0.748-0.788; validation dataset AUC: 0.729, 95% CI 0.687-0.770). The calculator, accessible at https://avonlea76.shinyapps.io/shiny_app_up/ , is user-friendly and compatible. The new predictive model of sepsis mortality is user-friendly and satisfactorily forecasts 28-day mortality. Its versatility lies in its applicability to all patients, encompassing both community-acquired and hospital-acquired sepsis.
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.