ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Evaluating deep learning sepsis prediction models in ICUs under distribution shift: a multi-centre retrospective cohort study.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning-based prediction of E. coli infection in hospitalized patients using a no-code analytical framework.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Management and Prediction of Acute Pancreatitis Severity Using AI: A Surgical Perspective.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Pathogen prevalence, feature composition and cross-centre generalisability of machine learning diagnostic models for multi-pathogen respiratory infection.Frontiers in public health · 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
Abstract
Sepsis prediction models trained on ICU data often fail to generalize under external validation because of distribution shift. Prior studies have focused on direct model deployment or conventional transfer learning methods (e.g., fine-tuning), yet systematic exploration of alternative strategies remains limited. We quantify shifts across three harmonized adult ICU cohorts (HiRID, MIMIC-IV, eICU; 216,536 stays) and compare five deployment strategies: generalization, fine-tuning/retraining, target training, supervised domain adaptation (DA), and fusion-training, across multiple deep learning architectures, and four target-data regimes (none; small ≤ 8k; medium 8-32k; large ≥ 32k stays). Fine-tuning consistently underperforms, even though it has been the go-to method in literature. Retraining and fusion perform best in small and large target data regimes, while DA yields the most stable gains with medium target data, improving AUROC and normalized AUPRC over other methods. These results argue for moving beyond routine fine-tuning for sepsis prediction and selecting strategies by target-data availability and operational context.
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.