ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Early clinical evaluation of a vendor developed pediatric artificial intelligence sepsis model in the emergency department.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 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.
- Cultivating AI leaders: the role of clinical informatics fellowship in transforming healthcare.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Aligning Artificial Intelligence Prediction Targets with Clinical Workflows Using Human Centered Design Methods.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct an independent external validation of an implemented vendor-developed emergency department (ED) pediatric sepsis predictive model. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective cross-sectional study within 2 ED sites of a large pediatric health system between January 1, 2021 and April 1, 2024. A nurse-facing interruptive alert appeared when the model score exceeded the threshold, triggering clinicians to call a sepsis huddle. We compared model predictive performance with vendor-reported performance using definitions that accounted for model threshold and alert timing in clinical practice. Care processes and patient outcome measures included time to first antibiotics, time to first fluid bolus, 30-day mortality, ED to ICU admission rate, and ICU free days.
resultsThe pre-intervention cohort consisted of 268 102 ED visits with 741 (0.28%) sepsis cases. The post-intervention cohort consisted of 331 061 ED visits with 1114 (0.34%) sepsis cases. Model predictive performance dropped from vendor-reported performance. Mean time to first antibiotic decreased from 112 to 102 minutes (P = .05, 95% confidence interval of difference, -19.1 to 0.1) and time to first bolus decreased by 16.7 minutes (P = .03, 95% confidence interval difference, -31.8 to -1.5) after the intervention. Decreases in 30-day mortality (6% [45/741] to 4% [52/1114]); ED to ICU admissions (87% [646/741] to 84% [941/1114]), and ICU free days (6 to 5) after the intervention did not meet statistical significance. DISCUSSION: Implementing the model led to significant reductions in time to fluid bolus and borderline decreases in time to antibiotics, with non-significant changes in mortality and ICU metrics. When implementing an externally developed model, local workflows, documentation patterns, and patient populations make it challenging to generalize published or reported model performance metrics to real world performance.
conclusionWhen tailoring a vendor-developed pediatric ED sepsis model for real-world usage, predictive performance differed substantially. Post-implementation we found improvements in care process measures, suggesting such models may benefit sepsis care when adapted for specific clinical workflows.
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.