ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Accuracy is not enough: explainable boosting machine model and identification of candidate biomarkers for real-time sepsis risk assessment in the emergency department.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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.
- Explainable Boosting Machine Predicting Length of Stay After Liver Surgery in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases.Cancers · 2026Article
- Biomarker-driven risk stratification and early intervention in acute kidney injury: a comprehensive review from early warning to clinical response.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis poses a significant threat in emergency settings, necessitating tools for early and interpretable risk assessment. This study aimed to develop a robust explainable boosting machine (EBM) model, one of the explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) technologies, to construct a predictive model that balances high accuracy and clinical interpretability for use in emergency departments (EDs) and to examine candidate biomarkers.
methodsThe study identified a significant class imbalance problem in the sepsis distribution among 560 sepsis and 1012 non-sepsis patients. To address the imbalance issue, SMOTE-NC was applied in the training data. The data was divided into two parts, 80% training and 20% testing. To ensure the reliability of the models and to report unbiased results, this process was repeated 100 times and the average performance was reported. To determine the best model for sepsis prediction, five different models (AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting, CatBoost, LightGBM, and EBM) were trained, and their performances were evaluated. In the last stage, we presented local and global explanations of EBM.
resultsThe EBM model achieved the highest success by reaching 79.1% F1-score, 80.9% sensitivity, and 84.8% AUC after resampling. In the global explanations, the variables with the highest weights in the model's decision process were identified as positive blood culture, oxygen saturation, and procalcitonin, respectively.
conclusionThe EBM model accurately predicts sepsis risk based on clinically relevant biomarkers. The model's high performance and inherent transparency can foster trust among clinicians and facilitate its integration into emergency department workflows for real-time decision support.
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.