Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40374284›Full record

Observational studyBMJ paediatrics open2025

Predicting sepsis treatment decisions in the paediatric emergency department using machine learning: the AiSEPTRON study.

Sylvester Gomes, Harpreet Dhanoa, Phil Assheton, Ewan Carr, Damian Roland, Akash Deep

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ paediatrics open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

6 authors.

Sylvester Gomes *Evelina London Children's Hospital, London, UK sylvester.gomes@gstt.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0201-672X
Harpreet Dhanoa *Clinical Analytics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Phil Assheton *Clinical Analytics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ewan Carr *Department of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, King's College London, London, UK.
Damian Roland *Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9334-5144
Akash Deep *Paediatric Intensive Care, King's College Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly identification of children at risk of sepsis in emergency departments (EDs) is crucial for timely treatment and improved outcomes. Existing risk scores and criteria for paediatric sepsis are not well-suited for early diagnosis in ED.

objectiveTo develop and evaluate machine learning models to predict clinical interventions and patient outcomes in children with suspected sepsis.

designRetrospective observational study.

settingED of a tertiary care hospital, UK. PATIENTS: Electronic health records of children <16 years of age attending between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019. Patients presenting with minor injuries were excluded.

methodsPrediction models were developed and validated, using 15 key predictors from triage and post-blood test data. XGBoost, the best-performing machine learning model, integrated these predictors with triage note information extracted via Natural Language Processing. MAIN OUTCOMES: (1) Administration of antibiotics; (2) critical care: antibiotics with fluid resuscitation above 20 mL/kg or non-elective mechanical ventilation; (3) serious infection: hospital admission for antibiotics >48 hours.Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), likelihood ratios and positive and negative predictive values.

resultsTriage model: predicted antibiotics at triage (n=35 795; 3.2% with outcome) with an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.84).Antibiotic model: predicted antibiotics post-blood tests (n=4700; 24.2%) with an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.81).Critical care model: predicted critical care (n=4700; 3.3%) with an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 084).Serious infection model: predicted serious infection (n=4700; 9.4%) with an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.81).Key predictors included triage category, temperature, capillary refill time and C reactive protein.

conclusionMachine learning models demonstrated good accuracy in predicting antibiotic use following triage and moderate accuracy for critical care and serious infection. Further development and external validation are ongoing.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsClinical Decision-MakingEmergency Service, HospitalMachine LearningSepsisAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMaleRetrospective StudiesTriageUnited KingdomAnti-Bacterial AgentsChild HealthMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID40374284
PMCPMC12083314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.