Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39854695›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

AI-Driven Innovations for Early Sepsis Detection by Combining Predictive Accuracy With Blood Count Analysis in an Emergency Setting: Retrospective Study.

Tai-Han Lin, Hsing-Yi Chung, Ming-Jr Jian, Chih-Kai Chang, Hung-Hsin Lin, Chiung-Tzu Yen, Sheng-Hui Tang, Pin-Ching Pan, Cherng-Lih Perng, Feng-Yee Chang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
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

12 authors.

Tai-Han Lin *Division of Clinical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-6100-3120
Hsing-Yi Chung *Division of Clinical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-7870-8354
Ming-Jr JianDivision of Clinical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-4902-4447
Chih-Kai ChangDivision of Clinical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0009-0004-9935-2942
Hung-Hsin LinDivision of Clinical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0009-0003-8802-4022
Chiung-Tzu YenDivision of Clinical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0009-0008-0892-4773
Sheng-Hui TangDivision of Clinical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-1208-3029
Pin-Ching PanDivision of Clinical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0009-0004-1864-205X
Cherng-Lih PerngDivision of Clinical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-7182-1031
Feng-Yee ChangDivision of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-8941-1129
Chien-Wen ChenDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-1295-3653
Hung-Sheng ShangDivision of Clinical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-4831-1866

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis, a critical global health challenge, accounted for approximately 20% of worldwide deaths in 2017. Although the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score standardizes the diagnosis of organ dysfunction, early sepsis detection remains challenging due to its insidious symptoms. Current diagnostic methods, including clinical assessments and laboratory tests, frequently lack the speed and specificity needed for timely intervention, particularly in vulnerable populations such as older adults, intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and those with compromised immune systems. While bacterial cultures remain vital, their time-consuming nature and susceptibility to false negatives limit their effectiveness. Even promising existing machine learning approaches are restricted by reliance on complex clinical factors that could delay results, underscoring the need for faster, simpler, and more reliable diagnostic strategies.

objectiveThis study introduces innovative machine learning models using complete blood count with differential (CBC+DIFF) data-a routine, minimally invasive test that assesses immune response through blood cell measurements, critical for sepsis identification. The primary objective was to implement this model within an artificial intelligence-clinical decision support system (AI-CDSS) to enhance early sepsis detection and management in critical care settings.

methodsThis retrospective study at Tri-Service General Hospital (September to December 2023) analyzed 746 ICU patients with suspected pneumonia-induced sepsis (supported by radiographic evidence and a SOFA score increase of ≥2 points), alongside 746 stable outpatients as controls. Sepsis infection sources were confirmed through positive sputum, blood cultures, or FilmArray results. The dataset incorporated both basic hematological factors and advanced neutrophil characteristics (side scatter light intensity, cytoplasmic complexity, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), with data from September to November used for training and data from December used for validation. Machine learning models, including light gradient boosting machine (LGBM), random forest classifier, and gradient boosting classifier, were developed using CBC+DIFF data and were assessed using metrics such as area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity. The best-performing model was integrated into the AI-CDSS, with its implementation supported through workshops and training sessions.

resultsPathogen identification in ICU patients found 243 FilmArray-positive, 411 culture-positive, and 92 undetected cases, yielding a final dataset of 654 (43.8%) sepsis cases out of 1492 total cases. The machine learning models demonstrated high predictive accuracy, with LGBM achieving the highest area under the curve (0.90), followed by the random forest classifier (0.89) and gradient boosting classifier (0.88). The best-performing LGBM model was selected and integrated as the core of our AI-CDSS, which was built on a web interface to facilitate rapid sepsis risk assessment using CBC+DIFF data.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that by providing streamlined predictions using CBC+DIFF data without requiring extensive clinical parameters, the AI-CDSS can be seamlessly integrated into clinical workflows, enhancing rapid, accurate identification of sepsis and improving patient care and treatment timeliness.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceSepsisAgedBlood Cell CountDecision Support Systems, ClinicalEarly DiagnosisEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesAI-CDSSartificial intelligenceartificial intelligence clinical decision support systemsCBC analysiscomplete blood count analysiscritical caresepsis

Identifiers

PMID39854695
PMCPMC11809270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.