ArticleClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine2025
Cell population data for early detection of sepsis in patients with suspected infection in the emergency department.
Article in Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking the Kinetics of Extended WBC Differential Count and Inflammatory Index Marker in Secondary Dengue Infection: Case Report at University Hospital.International medical case reports journal · 2026Article
- The predictive value of the Systemic Inflammatory Response Index in evaluating the severity of influenza A-induced viral pneumonia among elderly patients: a retrospective analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Do NEUT-RI, NEUT-GI, RE-LYMP, and AS-LYMP provide diagnostic value in differentiating acute cholecystitis from biliary colic?Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2026Article
- Intensive care infection score: ICIS discriminates between infected and uninfected critically ill patients in routine intensive care unit practice.Intensive care medicine experimental · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTraditional biomarkers used for sepsis diagnosis have limited sensitivity and specificity and, so far, are not recommended for sepsis diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of XN-9000
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional cohort study on patients admitted to an emergency department (ED) with a suspicion of infection, having a complete blood count with differential (CBC-Diff). CBC-Diff were performed on XN-9000
resultsA total of 1,155 patients with a suspicion of infection were included and 230 had sepsis. Median age was 64 years and 49 % were female. Except for lymphocyte count with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.67 (95 % confidential interval 0.63-0.70), the other CPD exhibited modest performances with AUROC under 0.65. The ICIS and NEMO scores had a modest performance with AUROC of 0.56 (0.52-0.61) and 0.55 (0.51-0.59) respectively.
conclusionsNone of the biomarkers and scores tested demonstrated sufficient diagnostic accuracy to be recommended for routine sepsis screening in the ED.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40205949What 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.