SynthesisCritical care explorations2025
Artificial Intelligence-Based Predictive Modeling for Early Detection of Sepsis in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care explorations, 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.
- Review
- Interpretable machine learning identifies immune-inflammatory and immunothrombotic biomarkers for myocardial injury and mortality risk stratification in severe pneumonia with diverse infectious etiologies.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review evaluates artificial intelligence (AI)-based predictive models developed for early sepsis detection in adult hospitalized patients. It explores model types, input features, validation strategies, performance metrics, clinical integration, and implementation challenges. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and CENTRAL for studies published between January 2015 and March 2025. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies included those developing or validating AI models for adult inpatient sepsis prediction using electronic health record data and reporting at least one performance metric (area under the curve [AUC], sensitivity, specificity, or F1 score). Studies focusing on pediatric populations, lacking quantitative evaluation, or unpublished in peer-reviewed journals were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Extracted variables included study design, patient population, model type, input features, validation approach, and performance outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most used retrospective designs, with limited prospective or real-time clinical validation. Commonly used algorithms included random forests, neural networks, support vector machines, and deep learning architectures (long short-term memory, convolutional neural network). Input data varied from structured sources (vital signs, laboratory values, demographics) to unstructured clinical notes processed via natural language processing. Reported AUC values ranged from 0.79 to 0.96, indicating strong predictive performance across models.
conclusionsAI models demonstrate significant promise for early sepsis detection, outperforming conventional scoring systems in many cases. However, generalizability, interpretability, and clinical implementation remain major challenges. Future research should emphasize externally validated, explainable, and scalable AI solutions integrated into real-time clinical workflows.
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.