ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Evaluating the impact of common clinical confounders on performance of deep-learning-based sepsis risk assessment.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Systematic Evaluation of Cohort Selection Criteria and Their Impact on Machine Learning Model Performance and Demographic Disparities in COVID-19 Outcomes: Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Human Genetic Analysis Reveals Circulating Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Level as a Protective Factor in Sepsis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- AI-based clinical prediction model for early infectious disease classification in the emergency department.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Early identification of sepsis in the emergency department using machine learning remains a challenging problem, primarily due to the lack of a gold standard for sepsis diagnosis, the heterogeneity in clinical presentations, and the impact of confounding conditions. Methods: In this work, we present a deep-learning-based predictive model designed to enable early detection of patients at risk of developing sepsis, using data from the first 24 h of admission. The model is based on routine blood test results commonly performed on patients, including CBC (Complete Blood Count), CMP (Comprehensive Metabolic Panel), lipid panels, vital signs, age, and sex. To address the challenge of label uncertainty as a part of the training process, we explore two different definitions, namely, Sepsis-3 and Adult Sepsis Event. We analyze the advantages and limitations of each in the context of patient clinical parameters and comorbidities. We specifically examine how the quality of the ground truth label influences the performance of the deep learning system and evaluate the effect of a consensus-based approach that incorporates both definitions. We also evaluated the model's performance across sub-cohorts, including patients with confounding comorbidities (such as chronic kidney, liver disease, and coagulation disorders) and those with infections confirmed by billing codes. Results: Our results show that the consensus-based model identifies at-risk patients in the first 24 h with 83.7% sensitivity, 80% specificity, 36% PPV, 97% NPV, and an AUC of 0.9. Our cohort-wise analysis revealed a high PPV (77%) in infection-confirmed subgroups and a drop in specificity across cohorts with confounding comorbidities (47-70%). Discussion: This work highlights the limitations of retrospective sepsis definitions and underscores the need for tailored approaches in automated sepsis detection, particularly when dealing with patients with confounding comorbidities.
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.