SynthesisJournal of medical systems2026
Evaluating Artificial Intelligence for Sepsis Prediction in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
This study aims to synthesize current evidence on artificial intelligence-based sepsis prediction models for emergency department patients and propose practical benchmarks that emphasize standardized data preparation and reproducible model characterization. Literature searches were conducted across Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase. Eligible studies were selected through a two-tiered screening process, followed by data extraction and assessment according to predefined criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to quantify model performance, and heterogeneity was explored by subgroup, regression, and sensitivity analyses. A total of 36 studies comprising 98 predictive models were included, with a pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.86–0.88). Differences in performance were associated with study-level methodologies, including target definition, data provenance, cohort scale, data preprocessing, feature representation, and model development. The integrated meta-regression further identified independent methodologies influencing model performance. Artificial intelligence-based models showed higher pooled predictive performance than widely used traditional scoring systems for sepsis in emergency departments. However, translation into practice remains limited by inconsistent evaluation and reporting, and by inadequate external validation. Standardized methodological benchmarks have the potential to improve reproducibility, comparability, and clinical applicability.
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.