ArticleResearch square2026
Patient Versus Prediction-Level Evaluation of a Dynamic Clinical Prediction Model of Sepsis.
Article in Research square, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Epic Sepsis Model version 2 (ESMv2) is a prediction model embedded into the electronic medical record used to warn clinicians which hospitalized patients are at risk for sepsis. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 31,951 hospitalizations of 25,760 patients to compare analyses conducted at the commonly used patient-level (where a maximum prediction prior to the onset of sepsis is used to measure performance) vs novel prediction-level (where each prediction is used to measure performance). Sepsis, defined by the Sepsis 3 criteria occurred during 1,049 hospitalizations (3.3%). Patient-level analyses suggested excellent discrimination AUC 0.86; [IQR 0.85, 0.87], whereas prediction-level analyses demonstrated lower performance AUC 0.62; [IQR 0.57, 0.65]. Low estimates of the positive predictive value (14.5% at the patient level vs 4% at the prediction level) imply a high number of false alerts. Common evaluation approaches may overstate the performance of dynamic prediction models and mislead clinical decision-making.
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.