Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40567322›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2025

Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Early Sepsis Prediction: A Scoping Review.

Hemalatha Shanmugam, Lavanya Airen, Saumya Rawat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. From Narrative to Navigation-A Translational Roadmap for AI-enabled Early Sepsis Prediction: Comment on Shanmugam et al.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

3 authors.

Hemalatha ShanmugamDepartment of Research, PanScience Innovations, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9756-9124
Lavanya AirenDepartment of Research, PanScience Innovations, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1976-8288
Saumya RawatDepartment of Research, PanScience Innovations, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9045-3471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aims: Sepsis, a dangerous condition where infection triggers an abnormal host response, requires quick detection to save lives. While traditional detection methods often fall short, artificial intelligence (AI) and its subsets, machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), offer new hope. This scoping review inspects the ML and DL models that are published in the period from 2022 to 2025 for sepsis prediction using electronic health records (EHRs). It aims to provide a comprehensive update for clinicians on the proposed sepsis prediction models, features used, data processing methods, model performance and clinical integration. Methods: Our March 11, 2025, PubMed search identified thirteen relevant studies that developed ML or DL models for predicting adult sepsis. Results: Most researchers used supervised ML, with some exploring DL and hybrid approaches. The models relied on standard clinical data like vital signs and laboratory results, similar to traditional scoring methods. Some models utilized demographic information and electrocardiographic (ECG) readings as features to predict sepsis. Performance metrics such as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, specificity, and sensitivity showed that these ML and DL models often surpassed the ability of both human clinicians and traditional scoring systems in predicting sepsis. Notable innovations included federated learning and model integration with EHR systems and physiological sensors. Conclusion: While AI shows promise for early sepsis detection, successful clinical adoption will require real-world testing and clear model interpretability. Future work should focus on standardizing these tools for practical medical use. How to cite this article: Shanmugam H, Airen L, Rawat S. Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Early Sepsis Prediction: A Scoping Review. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(6):516-524.

Indexed as

Deep learningElectronic health recordsMachine learningSepsis predictionSupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID40567322
PMCPMC12186070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.