ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Diagnostic potential of extended inflammation parameters for sepsis identification: a retrospective case-control study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning-based risk predictive models for depression in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
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
Background: An early and accurate diagnosis of sepsis is critical for improving patient outcomes. Extended inflammation parameters (EIPs), derived from routine complete blood count (CBC) analysis, have emerged as promising biomarkers for inflammatory response. This study aimed to explore the diagnostic potential of a model combining several EIPs for identifying sepsis in a case-control setting. Participants and methods: A retrospective, single-center, case-control study was conducted at Tawam Hospital, AlAin, United Arab Emirates involving 157 participants; 53 patients with confirmed sepsis per Sepsis-3 criteria admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and 104 control participants from outpatient clinics with no obvious evidence of infection. EIPs, including immature granulocyte count (IG#), neutrophil reactivity intensity (NEUT-RI), and reactive lymphocyte percentage per lymphocyte (RE-LYMP%/L), were retrieved from initial CBCs performed on a Sysmex XN-1000 analyzer. A three-parameter logarithmic model was developed, and its performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Internal validation was performed using 1,000 bootstrap iterations to estimate bias-corrected performance. Results: The logarithmic model, i.e., log(IG# + 1) + log(NEUT-RI/100 + 1) + log(RE-LYMP%/L/50 + 1), combining IG#, NEUT-RI, and RE-LYMP%/L demonstrated high apparent discrimination for identifying sepsis, with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.941 (95% CI: 0.902-0.980), a sensitivity of 88.5% (95% CI: 77.0-95.8%), and a specificity of 91.3% (95% CI: 84.2-96.0%). Bootstrap internal validation yielded an optimism-corrected AUC of 0.923 (95% CI: 0.874-0.966), with minimal optimism (0.018), suggesting model stability within this dataset. Conclusion: A prediction model combining three different EIPs demonstrated high discrimination in a case-control setting, however this design of comparing ICU sepsis patients to healthy outpatient controls introduces severe spectrum bias characteristic of two-gate studies, which can inflate discrimination metrics significantly when compared with single-gate Emergency Department populations where diagnostic uncertainty is genuine. These results should be considered preliminary exploratory findings only. The extreme spectrum bias inherent to our case-control design means reported performance reflects statistical discrimination in an artificial scenario rather than real-world diagnostic accuracy, with expected ED performance substantially lower (estimated AUC 0.70-0.79). Rigorous prospective validation in consecutive ED patients with suspected infection, including head-to-head comparison with established biomarkers procalcitonin and C-reactive protein, is essential before any clinical consideration.
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.