ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2025
The role of artificial intelligence in sepsis in the Emergency Department: a narrative review.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence for Sepsis Prediction in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2026Pooled it
- Challenges in early detection and prognostication of sepsis: new approaches from the emergency department and intensive care unit.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Development of a machine learning-based sepsis prediction model for real-world clinical settings in South Korea: a single-center retrospective study.Journal of Korean biological nursing science · 2026Article
- Evaluation framework for assessing the quality and safety of artificial intelligence solutions for the acute care surgeon: a narrative review from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma quality, safety, and outcomes committee.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Infectious Diseases in Older Adults: Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Applications.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Role of artificial intelligence in ICU therapeutic decision-making for severe infections.Current opinion in critical care · 2025Review
- Benchmarking vision-language models for diagnostics in emergency and critical care settings.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Prediction of bacteremia using routine hematological and metabolic parameters based on logistic regression and random forest models.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.