ArticleIntelligence-based medicine2021
Physician documentation matters. Using natural language processing to predict mortality in sepsis.
Article in Intelligence-based medicine, 2021. 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.
- Artificial intelligence for early sepsis detection and dynamic prognostication in onco-critical care.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical utility of automatic phenotype annotation in unstructured clinical notes: intensive care unit use.BMJ health & care informatics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background/objective: Sepsis remains without good outcome prediction. Technological advances, specifically, natural language processing (NLP), has an opportunity to approach sepsis mortality prediction in a novel way. Methods: Using the MIMIC III dataset, patients diagnosed with sepsis from 2008 to 2013 had physician progress notes analyzed using NLP. Researchers utilized concepts from analysis to build a model to predict for in-hospital-mortality, using notes in the first 24 hours of a patient admission. This model was retrospectively validated on septic admissions to University of California Irvine Medical Center (UCIMC) from 2013 to 2018 and compared to SOFA and qSOFA. Results: An 80-concept model was developed and validated on 7117 admissions to UCIMC. For severe sepsis, an Area Under Curve or AUC of 0.687 (95% CI 0.618-0.748) was demonstrated which was greater than SOFA at 0.571 (0.497-0.643). Additionally, for simple sepsis the model demonstrated an AUC of 0.696 (0.649-0.738) which was greater than qSOFA at 0.590 (0.545-0.638). Conclusions: Physician clinical judgement extracted from notes using NLP has greater performance in predicting mortality and survival in sepsis compared to structured data used in SOFA and qSOFA.
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.