ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Clinical validation and optimization of machine learning models for early prediction of sepsis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Early Sepsis Prediction: A Scoping Review.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Sepsis is a global health threat that has a high incidence and mortality rate. Early prediction of sepsis onset can drive effective interventions and improve patients' outcome. Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from a cohort of 2,329 adult patients with positive bacteria cultures from a tertiary hospital in China between October 1, 2019 and September 30, 2020. Thirty six clinical features were selected as inputs for the models. We trained models in predicting sepsis by machine learning (ML) methods, including logistic regression, decision tree, random forest (RF), multi-layer perceptron, and light gradient boosting. We evaluated the performance of the five ML models and the evaluation metrics were: area under the ROC curve (AUC), accuracy, F1-score, sensitivity and specificity. The data of another cohort of 2,286 patients between October 1, 2020 and April 1, 2022 were used to validate the performance of the model performing best in the in the internal validation set. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) method was applied to evaluate feature importance and explain the predictions of this model. Results: Of the five machine learning models developed, the RF model demonstrated the best performance in terms of AUC (0.818), F1 value (0.38), and sensitivity (0.746). The RF model also has a comparable AUC (0.771) in the external validation set. The SHAP method identified procalcitonin, albumin, prothrombin time, and sex as the important variables contributing to the prediction of sepsis. Discussion: The RF model we developed showed the greatest potential for early prediction of sepsis in admitted patients, which could aid clinicians in their decision-making process. Our findings also suggested that male patients with bacterial infections and high procalcitonin levels, lower albumin levels, or prolonged prothrombin times were more likely to develop sepsis.
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.