ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Development and validation of web-based, interpretable predictive models for sepsis and mortality in extensive burns.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Burn and Wound Care: Image Analysis, Prediction, and Clinical Integration.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026Review
- Infections in Burn Patients: Pathophysiology, Prevention, and Contemporary Therapeutic Strategies in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- Interpretative machine learning for predicting 60-day mortality in burn patients with suspected infection.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Translational Potential and Explainability of Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support for Adults in Intensive Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- The hidden battlefield: platelet function in the wake of severe trauma.Frontiers in immunology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Burn injuries are a common cause of trauma globally, with extensive burns (≥ 50% total body surface area burned) associated with high rates of sepsis and mortality. This study aims to identify risk factors associated with sepsis and mortality in extensively burned patients and to develop accurate, interpretable predictive models via machine learning algorithms. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted utilizing data from two Burn Critical Care Units in Eastern China from 2012-2023. A total of 237 patients with extensive burns were included. We applied ten machine learning algorithms, including random forest, gradient boosting tree (GBT), and logistic regression, to predict sepsis and mortality. The models were evaluated via AUC, precision, recall, accuracy, and F1 score, and were compared with the SOFA score performance. Model interpretability was enhanced via SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Results: The key predictive factors for sepsis included the SOFA score, new onset shock, albumin, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), third-degree burned area, TBSA burned, white blood cell count, and inhalation injury. For mortality, the key predictive factors included alanine aminotransferase (ALT), the SOFA score, type of burn, new onset shock, third-degree burn area, TBSA burned, and sepsis. The RF model demonstrated superior performance in predicting sepsis (AUC = 0.977, accuracy = 0.945, recall = 0.964, precision = 0.930, and F1 score = 0.945). For mortality prediction, the GBT model yielded the highest AUC of 0.981 (accuracy = 0.952, recall = 0.965, precision = 0.942, and F1 score = 0.953). The sepsis prediction model outperformed the SOFA-based logistic regression model. Web-based calculators were developed to aid clinical decision-making. Conclusion: Machine learning models, RF and GBT, demonstrate strong predictive ability for sepsis and mortality in extensive burn patients. The application of SHAP enhances model transparency, facilitating clinical interpretation and early intervention. Two web-based calculators can guide intensive care strategies and improve patient outcomes.
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.