Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39633080›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024

A scoping review on pediatric sepsis prediction technologies in healthcare.

Ryan Tennant, Jennifer Graham, Juliet Kern, Kate Mercer, J Mark Ansermino, Catherine M Burns

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Explainable AI: Ethical Frameworks, Bias, and the Necessity for Benchmarks.European journal of pediatric surgery : official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery ... [et al] = Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ryan TennantDepartment of Systems Design Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, N2L3G1, Ontario, Canada. drtennan@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0932-9510
Jennifer GrahamDepartment of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, N2L3G1, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8226-5085
Juliet KernDepartment of Systems Design Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, N2L3G1, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-7473-2108
Kate MercerDepartment of Systems Design Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, N2L3G1, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6958-3396
J Mark AnserminoCentre for International Child Health, British Columbia Children's Hospital, 305-4088 Cambie Street, Vancouver, V5Z2X8, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8427-2035
Catherine M BurnsDepartment of Systems Design Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, N2L3G1, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6182-958X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review evaluates recent advancements in data-driven technologies for predicting non-neonatal pediatric sepsis, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other methodologies. Of the 27 included studies, 23 (85%) were single-center investigations, and 16 (59%) used logistic regression. Notably, 20 (74%) studies used datasets with a low prevalence of sepsis-related outcomes, with area under the receiver operating characteristic scores ranging from 0.56 to 0.99. Prediction time points varied widely, and development characteristics, performance metrics, implementation outcomes, and considerations for human factors-especially workflow integration and clinical judgment-were inconsistently reported. The variations in endpoint definitions highlight the potential significance of the 2024 consensus criteria in future development. Future research should strengthen the involvement of clinical users to enhance the understanding and integration of human factors in designing and evaluating these technologies, ultimately aiming for safe and effective integration in pediatric healthcare.

Identifiers

PMID39633080
PMCPMC11618667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.