Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41775890›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026

Evaluating deep learning sepsis prediction models in ICUs under distribution shift: a multi-centre retrospective cohort study.

Fanny Tranchellini, Youssef Farag, Catherine Jutzeler, Lakmal Meegahapola

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fanny TranchelliniDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Youssef FaragDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Catherine JutzelerDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Lakmal MeegahapolaDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. lakmalbuddikalucky@gmail.com.

Funding

Novartis Stiftung für Medizinisch-Biologische Forschung 24A023Strategic focus area "personalized health and related technologies (PHRT)" of the ETH domain 902
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41775890
PMCPMC13066616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.