ArticleScientific reports2025
Survival analysis for sepsis patients: A machine learning approach to feature selection and predictive modeling.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Development and external validation of the HCH and HPMS prognostic indices for sepsis: a retrospective model development study using a Multi-Objective Non-Newtonian Fluid optimization algorithm.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Multi-omics data integration using time-to event endpoint and supervised Cox penalized regression: a comprehensive review.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- Development and comparative evaluation of machine learning algorithms and Cox regression for predicting fasting plasma glucose-defined incident prediabetes: a longitudinal cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- A consensus-weighted multi-agent ensemble feature selection framework for antibiotic susceptibility prediction in pediatric respiratory diseases.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
Abstract
Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that presents substantial challenges to healthcare and pharmacological management due to its high mortality rates and complex patient responses. Accurately predicting patient outcomes is essential for optimizing therapeutic interventions and improving clinical decision-making. This study evaluates the predictive performance of the Cox proportional hazards model and advanced machine learning techniques, such as extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), gradient boosting machine (GBM), and random survival forests (RSF), in forecasting survival outcomes for sepsis patients. Feature selection methods, including adaptive elastic net (AEN), smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD), minimax concave penalty (MCP), and information gain (IG), were employed to refine model performance by identifying the most relevant clinical features. The results demonstrate that XGBoost consistently outperforms the Cox model, achieving a higher concordance index and demonstrating superior accuracy in handling complex, non-linear clinical interactions. The integration of feature selection further enhanced the machine learning models' predictive capabilities. These findings emphasize the potential of machine learning techniques to improve outcome prediction and guide personalized treatment strategies, offering valuable tools for critical care settings.
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.