ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Bug Wars: Artificial Intelligence Strikes Back in Sepsis Management.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Infectious Disease Care: Selected Applications in Tuberculosis, Sepsis, and Antimicrobial Stewardship.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- When Intuition Meets the Algorithm: Medico-Legal Implications of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Decision-Making in Orthopedics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Hyper-inflammation and immunosuppression: redefining sepsis therapy using modern approaches.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis remains a leading global cause of mortality, with delayed recognition and empirical antibiotic overuse fueling poor outcomes and rising antimicrobial resistance. This systematic scoping review evaluates the current landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) applications in sepsis care, focusing on early detection, personalized antibiotic management, and resistance forecasting. Literature from 2019 to 2025 was systematically reviewed following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A total of 129 full-text articles were analyzed, with study quality assessed via the JBI and QUADAS-2 tools. AI-based models demonstrated robust predictive performance for early sepsis detection (AUROC 0.68-0.99), antibiotic stewardship, and resistance prediction. Notable tools, such as InSight and KI.SEP, leveraged multimodal clinical and biomarker data to provide actionable, real-time support and facilitate timely interventions. AI-driven platforms showed potential to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use and nephrotoxicity while optimizing outcomes. However, most models are limited by single-center data, variable interpretability, and insufficient real-world validation. Key challenges remain regarding data integration, algorithmic bias, and ethical implementation. Future research should prioritize multicenter validation, seamless integration with clinical workflows, and robust ethical frameworks to ensure safe, equitable, and effective adoption. AI and ML hold significant promise to transform sepsis management, but their clinical impact depends on transparent, validated, and user-centered deployment.
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.