ReviewCritical care research and practice2025
Exploring the Potentials of Artificial Intelligence in Sepsis Management in the Intensive Care Unit.
Review in Critical care research and practice, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in the emergency department-- applications, perceptions and limitations: a narrative review.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-assisted phenotyping of sepsis: Research progress, clinical challenges, and translational prospects.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, particularly among critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Traditional diagnostic approaches, such as the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, often detect sepsis after significant organ dysfunction has occurred, limiting the potential for early intervention. In this study, we reviewed how artificial intelligence (AI)-driven methodologies, including machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and natural language processing (NLP), can aid physicians. AI, in this case, particularly ML, processes massive amounts of real-time clinical data, vital signs, lab results, and patient history and can detect subtle patterns and predict sepsis earlier than traditional methods like SOFA or SIRS, which often lag behind after the presentation of the sequela. Models like random forest, XGBoost, and neural networks achieve high accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) scores (0.8-0.99) in ICU and emergency settings, enabling timely intervention by distinguishing sepsis from similar conditions despite the lack of perfect biomarkers. In practice, however, there are several potential pitfalls. Algorithmic bias due to nonrepresentative data, data fragmentation, lack of validation, and explainability issues are current barriers in developed models. Future research should address these limitations and develop more sophisticated models.
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.