ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
A novel scoring system for evaluating mortality risk of patients with sepsis during early hospitalization.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is a complex life-threatening condition. Early initiation of treatment is crucial in reducing mortality. Current scoring systems have a lack of reliability in the emergency department (ED) or during early hospitalization (EH). Thus, a quick, reliable, and objective scoring system for assessing mortality risk during EH or ED could significantly reduce sepsis mortality.
methodsUsing the MIMIC-IV database, we identified 7546 patients hospitalized due to septicemia. We included 13 comorbidity groups and the first chronologically available values of 75 laboratory parameters from the ED or EH. To create and validate our scoring system for early prediction of in-hospital mortality (e-SEPSS), patients were assigned to model development (MD) (N = 1004) or model validation (MV) group (N = 6542), with the latter serving as internal validation of e-SEPSS. Each risk factor that contributed significantly to mortality was assigned one point. Groups with different numbers of points were compared according to mortality and hospitalization duration.
resultsDecreased chlorides, increased mean corpuscular hemoglobin, increased red blood cell distribution width, increased phosphates, decreased pH, increased partial thromboplastin time, and increased lactate dehydrogenase were included in e-SEPSS due to the highest reliability in predicting mortality. Patients received 1 point for each parameter, creating 8 mortality risk groups. A significant linear increase in mortality with each additional point was shown, ranging from 4.1% (0 points) to 100% (7 points) in the MD group. Similar trends were observed in the MV group. High power in discriminating patients with different mortality risks was shown (MD (ROC AUC = 0.718, CI 0.682-0.754), MV (ROC AUC = 0.798, CI 0.783-0.813)). Decreased survival time and shorter time-to-death with each additional point strengthened the validity of e-SEPSS (Mantel-Cox χ
conclusione-SEPSS provides a simple, objective, reliable, and accessible way of predicting mortality in septic patients in the ED or during EH.. After external and clinical validation of e-SEPSS, it could become a useful additional tool in reducing sepsis mortality.
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.