ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Machine learning for the prediction of urosepsis using electronic health record data.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct landscapes of T-cell immunity and TCR repertoire between sepsis and pre-septic high-risk states.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urosepsis, a medical condition resulting from the progression of urinary tract infection (UTI), is a leading cause of death in the US. Urosepsis occurs due to complicated UTI and constitutes ~25% of sepsis cases. Early prediction of urosepsis is critical in providing personalized care, reducing diagnostic uncertainty, lowering mortality rates. While machine learning (ML) techniques have the potential to aid healthcare professionals in identifying risk factors and recommending treatment options, no study has been developed to predict the development of urosepsis in patients with a suspected UTI in outpatient settings. We develop and evaluate ML models in predicting hospital admission and urosepsis diagnosis for patients with an outpatient UTI encounter, leveraging de-identified electronic health records sourced from UCLA. Inclusion criteria included a positive diagnosis of urinary tract infection indicated by ICD-10 code N30/N93.0 and positive bacteria result via urinalysis in an ambulatory setting. W extracted demographic information, urinalysis findings, and antibiotics prescribed for each instance of UTI. Reencounters we defined as encounters within seven days of the initial UTI. Reencounters were considered urosepsis-related if matching positive blood and urine cultures were found with a sepsis ICD-10 code of A41/R78/R65. ML models were trained and evaluated on two tasks: prediction of a reencounter leading to hospitalization, prediction of Urosepsis. Model performances were stratified by ethnicities. Random forest models achieved significant improvement over baseline performance (APR = 0.004), with APR = 0.15 for reencounters and 0.31 for urosepsis prediction. While these APR values reflect the challenge of predicting rare events (0.4% prevalence), they represent meaningful predictive power for clinical risk stratification. We computed Shapley values to interpret model predictions and found patient age, sex, and urinary WBC-count were the top three predictive features. Our study has the potential to assist clinicians in the identification of high-risk patients, informed decisions about antibiotic prescription and improving patient care.
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.