Observational studyBMJ paediatrics open2025
Predicting sepsis treatment decisions in the paediatric emergency department using machine learning: the AiSEPTRON study.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in pediatric intensive care units: current applications in sepsis management.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2026Pooled it
- Vital signs as biomarkers of early clinical deterioration in pediatric emergency departments: physiology, interpretation, and innovations: a narrative review.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Prediction of infection in the emergency department-a machine learning model.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
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
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
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.