ArticleJMIR AI2024
Sepsis Prediction at Emergency Department Triage Using Natural Language Processing: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence for Sepsis Prediction in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Interventions to Optimize Emergency Department Care of Patients with Cancer.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Predicting Sepsis and Septic Shock Among Patients with Documented Fever at Emergency Department Triage Using Patients' Historical Data.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based natural language processing for critical care identification in pediatric emergency department.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Performance of a Sepsis Prediction Model Across Different Sepsis Definitions.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Interpretable admission-stage machine learning for early Sepsis-3 identification in the emergency department.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The incremental value of unstructured data via natural language processing in machine learning-based COVID-19 mortality prediction: a comparative study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Using telecommunication dialogue and nursing documentation to predict the risk of emergency room visit in a web-based telehealth programme.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Review
- AI-driven healthcare: Fairness in AI healthcare: A survey.PLOS digital health · 2025Review
- The role of artificial intelligence in sepsis in the Emergency Department: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Validation and comparison of triage-based screening strategies for sepsis.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite its high lethality, sepsis can be difficult to detect on initial presentation to the emergency department (ED). Machine learning-based tools may provide avenues for earlier detection and lifesaving intervention.
objectiveThe study aimed to predict sepsis at the time of ED triage using natural language processing of nursing triage notes and available clinical data.
methodsWe constructed a retrospective cohort of all 1,234,434 consecutive ED encounters in 2015-2021 from 4 separate clinically heterogeneous academically affiliated EDs. After exclusion criteria were applied, the final cohort included 1,059,386 adult ED encounters. The primary outcome criteria for sepsis were presumed severe infection and acute organ dysfunction. After vectorization and dimensional reduction of triage notes and clinical data available at triage, a decision tree-based ensemble (time-of-triage) model was trained to predict sepsis using the training subset (n=950,921). A separate (comprehensive) model was trained using these data and laboratory data, as it became available at 1-hour intervals, after triage. Model performances were evaluated using the test (n=108,465) subset.
resultsSepsis occurred in 35,318 encounters (incidence 3.45%). For sepsis prediction at the time of patient triage, using the primary definition, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and macro F
conclusionsSepsis can accurately be predicted at ED presentation using nursing triage notes and clinical information available at the time of triage. This indicates that machine learning can facilitate timely and reliable alerting for intervention. Free-text data can improve the performance of predictive modeling at the time of triage and throughout the ED course.
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.