Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40115064›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2025

The role of artificial intelligence in sepsis in the Emergency Department: a narrative review.

Mui Teng Chua, Yuru Boon, Zi Yao Lee, Jian Hao Jaryl Kok, Clement Kee Woon Lim, Nicole Mun Teng Cheung, Lorraine Pei Xian Yong, Win Sen Kuan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Mui Teng ChuaEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6326-4914
Yuru BoonEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5463-9713
Zi Yao LeeEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4946-9457
Jian Hao Jaryl KokEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5012-2127
Clement Kee Woon LimEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9514-0766
Nicole Mun Teng CheungEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1572-7328
Lorraine Pei Xian YongEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1885-6830
Win Sen KuanEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2134-7842

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Early recognition and treatment of sepsis in the emergency department (ED) is important. Traditional predictive analytics and clinical decision rules lack accuracy in identifying patients with sepsis. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly prevalent in healthcare and offers application potential in the care of patients with sepsis. This review examines the evidence of AI in diagnosing, managing and prognosticating sepsis in the ED. Methods: We performed literature search in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Scopus databases for studies published between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2024 that evaluated the use of AI in adult patients with sepsis in ED, using the following search terms: ("artificial intelligence" OR "machine learning" OR "neural networks, computer" OR "deep learning" OR "natural language processing"), AND ("sepsis" OR "septic shock", AND "emergency services" OR "emergency department"). Independent searches were conducted in duplicate with discrepancies adjudicated by a third member. Key Content and Findings: Incorporating multiple variables such as vital signs, free text input, laboratory tests and electrocardiogram was possible with AI compared to traditional models leading to improvement in diagnostic performance. Machine learning (ML) models outperformed traditional scoring tools in both diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis. ML models were able to analyze trends over time and showed utility in predicting mortality, severe sepsis and septic shock. Additionally, real-time ML-assisted alert systems are effective in improving time-to-antibiotic administration and ML algorithms can differentiate sepsis patients into distinct phenotypes to tailor management (especially fluid therapy and critical care interventions), potentially improving outcomes. Existing AI tools for sepsis currently lack generalizability and user acceptance. This is risk of automation bias with loss of clinicians' skills if over-reliance develops. Conclusions: Overall, AI holds great promise in revolutionizing management of patients with sepsis in the ED as a clinical support tool. However, its application is currently still constrained by inherent limitations. Balanced integration of AI technology with clinician input is essential to harness its full potential and ensure optimal patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligence (AI)emergency medical servicesmachine learning (ML)prognosissepsis

Identifiers

PMID40115064
PMCPMC11921180

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.