Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40729785›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2025

External validation of a widely available, localizable sepsis early detection model in the emergency department setting.

Danielle Currey, Yasir Tarabichi

Erratum issuedAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Danielle CurreySchool of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA; Center for Clinical Informatics Research and Education, MetroHealth, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Yasir TarabichiSchool of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA; Center for Clinical Informatics Research and Education, MetroHealth, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, MetroHealth, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: yxt277@case.edu.

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandUL1TR002548 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI MCCOMSEY, GRACE A · 2018 to 2022
$35.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002548
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectiveSeveral algorithms have been developed to assist clinicians in predicting the onset of sepsis. One of the most widely used is the Epic Sepsis Model. The first release of the model (V1) was a logistic regression that suffered from variable results in external validation. The second release (V2) leverages a gradient boosted tree model that can be localized to an individual hospital system. While widely available, V2 has yet to be independently externally validated.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective study comparing the performance of both models in the emergency department setting. Model discrimination was measured via AUC-ROC for both V1 and V2 at the encounter level, before sepsis-3 criteria were met and before there was evidence of clinical recognition of sepsis (identified by antibiotic, culture, or lactate orders).

results35,076 encounters were included. 648 (1.8 %) met sepsis-3 criteria. AUC-ROC scores were 0.77 for V1 and 0.90 for V2. When only considering scores before evidence of clinical recognition of sepsis, there is a drop in AUC-ROC to 0.70 for V1 and to 0.85 for V2. At a scoring threshold targeting a 60 % sensitivity, V1 and V2 predictions were earlier than the first clinical recognition of sepsis in only 33.0 and 33.5 % of cases respectively.

conclusionWhile V2 achieves superior AUC-ROC's to V1 both before and after clinical recognition of sepsis, both models tended to alert for sepsis after evidence of clinical recognition.

Indexed as

Early DiagnosisEmergency Service, HospitalSepsisAdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesROC CurveArtificial intelligenceClinical decision supportSepsis

Identifiers

PMID40729785
PMCPMC12337131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.