ArticleScientific reports2026
A machine learning model for post-operative sepsis prediction in acute surgical patients: a multi-centre, prospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop and validate a machine learning (ML) solution for predicting sepsis among elderly surgical patients undergoing emergency procedure. Data from over 150 variables were collected across multiple domains. ML models were cross-validated using a nested-cross validation approach. The performance of individual models was assessed based on accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A total of 29 medical centres participated in the study, ensuring a diverse and representative sample. The study included patients undergoing emergency procedures across various surgical specialties, encompassing abdominal, thoracic, vascular, gynaecological, and urological surgeries, performed by both general and emergency surgeons in general or trauma surgery settings. Among 2571 enrolled patients, 119 were identified as having sepsis. The Random Forest model demonstrated the highest accuracy of 96.2%, with notable sensitivity and specificity. An ensemble model further improved performance, achieving an accuracy of 96.06%. ML models, show promise in accurately predicting sepsis among elderly surgical patients in emergency settings. These findings underscore the potential of ML in enhancing risk stratification and informing clinical decision-making to improve patient outcomes and post-surgery rehabilitation. Further research and validation studies are warranted to evaluate the real-world applicability and integration of these predictive models into clinical practice.
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.