ArticleBMJ open2024
Employing artificial intelligence for optimising antibiotic dosages in sepsis on intensive care unit: a study protocol for a prospective observational study (KI.SEP).
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bug Wars: Artificial Intelligence Strikes Back in Sepsis Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Machine learning approach for the prediction of 30-day mortality in patients with sepsis-associated delirium.PloS one · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn sepsis treatment, achieving and maintaining effective antibiotic therapy is crucial. However, optimal antibiotic dosing faces challenges due to significant variability among patients with sepsis. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), the current gold standard, lacks initial dosage adjustments and global availability. Even with daily TDM, antibiotic serum concentrations (ASCs) often deviate from the therapeutic range. This study addresses these challenges by developing machine learning (ML)-based ASC prediction models capable of handling variable data input and encompassing diverse clinical, laboratory, microbiological and proteomic parameters without the need for daily TDM.
methodsThis prospective observational study is conducted in a German university hospital intensive care unit. Eligible sepsis patients receive continuous antibiotic therapy with piperacillin/tazobactam (n=100) or meropenem (n=100) within 24 hours. Exclusion criteria include refusal, pregnancy, lactation and severe anaemia (haemoglobin <8 g/dL). Blood samples for TDM are collected from patients, along with clinical and laboratory parameters on days 1-8 and day 30 or on discharge. ML models predicting ASC between day 1 and day 8 serve as primary and key secondary endpoints. We will use the collected data to develop multifaceted ML-based algorithms aimed at optimising antibiotic dosing in sepsis. Our two-way approach involves creating two distinct algorithms: the first focuses on predictive accuracy and generalisability using routine clinical parameters, while the second leverages an extended dataset including a plethora of factors currently insufficiently explored and not available in standard clinical practice but may help to enhance precision. Ultimately, these models are envisioned for integration into clinical decision support systems within patient data management systems, facilitating automated, personalised treatment recommendations for sepsis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received approval from the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of Ruhr-University Bochum (No. 23-7905). Findings will be disseminated through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal and social media channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00032970.
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.