ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Improving sepsis prediction in intensive care with SepsisAI: A clinical decision support system with a focus on minimizing false alarms.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Closed-Loop Neuromodulation for Brain Fatigue: From Real-Time Biomarkers to Adaptive Intervention.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Clinician Burnout in the United States: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Improving clinical decision support through interpretable machine learning and error handling in electronic health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Progress in sepsis prediction models: from traditional scoring systems to multimodal intelligence and clinical translation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence based predictive models for early sepsis detection in intensive care units: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- A methodological systematic review of validation and performance of sepsis real-time prediction models.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of sepsis CDS tool knowledge and utilization among graduate medical trainees: insights to inform redesign in an academic health system.Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prediction of sepsis using machine-learning approaches has recently gained traction. However, the lack of translation of these algorithms into clinical routine remains a major issue. Existing early sepsis detection methods are either based on the older definition of sepsis or do not accurately detect sepsis leading to the high frequency of false-positive alarms. This results in a well-known issue of clinicians' "alarm fatigue", leading to decreased responsiveness and identification, ultimately resulting in delayed clinical intervention. Hence, there is a fundamental, unmet need for a clinical decision system capable of accurate and timely sepsis diagnosis, running at the point of need. In this work, SepsisAI-a deep-learning algorithm based on long short-term memory (LSTM) networks was developed to predict the early onset of hospital-acquired sepsis in real-time for patients admitted to the ICU. The models are trained and validated with data from the PhysioNet Challenge, consisting of 40,336 patient data files from two healthcare systems: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Emory University Hospital. In the short term, the algorithm tracks frequently measured vital signs, sparsely available lab parameters, demographic features, and certain derived features for making predictions. A real-time alert system, which monitors the trajectory of the predictions, is developed on top of the deep-learning framework to minimize false alarms. On a balanced test dataset, the model achieves an AUROC, AUPRC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.95, 0.96, 88.19%, and 96.75%, respectively at the patient level. In terms of lookahead time, the model issues a warning at a median of 6 hours (IQR 6 to 20 hours) and raises an alert at a median of 4 hours (IQR 2 to 5 hours) ahead of sepsis onset. Most importantly, the model achieves a false-alarm ratio of 3.18% for alerts, which is significantly less than other sepsis alarm systems. Additionally, on a disease prevalence-based test set, the algorithm reported similar outcomes with AUROC and AUPRC of 0.94 and 0.87, respectively, with sensitivity, and specificity of 97.05%, and 96.75%, respectively. The proposed algorithm might serve as a clinical decision support system to assist clinicians in the accurate and timely diagnosis of sepsis. With exceptionally high specificity and low false-alarm rate, this algorithm also helps mitigate the well-known issue of clinician alert fatigue arising from currently proposed sepsis alarm systems. Consequently, the algorithm partially addresses the challenges of successfully integrating machine-learning algorithms into routine clinical care.
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.