ReviewBMC infectious diseases2026
Artificial intelligence for sepsis management in the emergency department.
Review in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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.
- Recent advances in screening, diagnosis, prognosis and personalized treatment of sepsis.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2026Review
- Hyper-inflammation and immunosuppression: redefining sepsis therapy using modern approaches.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis a major cause of emergency department (ED) presentations, with over 850,000 cases annually in the United States alone. Despite decades of research and numerous clinical trials, sepsis management still relies on the basic principles of infection control and organ support, with no sepsis-specific therapies proving universally effective. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer new opportunities to address this challenge by supporting clinicians in early detection, optimizing diagnostic work-ups, and improving treatment decisions. This narrative review highlights the potential of AI tools in sepsis care, particularly in the ED setting. Early detection systems have demonstrated potential to alert clinicians to sepsis onset, but concerns about their real-world performance and impact remain. Diagnostic innovations, such as AI tools predicting blood culture positivity or novel biomarker-integrated platforms like the Sepsis ImmunoScore, promise to enhance accuracy and efficiency in identifying infections. Furthermore, AI-driven patient stratification into clinically or biologically defined subgroups, enables a precision medicine approach to sepsis treatment, identifying patients most likely to benefit from specific interventions. Despite these advances, significant challenges remain. Most AI tools for sepsis have been validated only in observational studies, with limited randomized evidence to support their clinical utility. Moreover, the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of sepsis complicates the development and implementation of AI tools in the ED, where data capture is often incomplete. Additional barriers include issues of generalizability, explainability, and the need for patient involvement in AI development and deployment. As AI continues to evolve, its potential to transform sepsis management in the ED is clear. However, rigorous clinical trials and thoughtful integration into existing workflows are essential to ensure that AI-driven tools meaningfully improve outcomes for patients with sepsis.
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.