ReviewCureus2026
Artificial Intelligence for Neonatal Sepsis Prediction: A Review of Advances, Clinical Integration, and Future Prospects.
Review in Cureus, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neonatal sepsis (NS) remains a cardinal cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, disproportionately affecting neonates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Blood culture, the current diagnostic reference standard, is burdened by prolonged turnaround times and the pervasive phenomenon of culture-negative sepsis, a limitation compounded by antenatal antibiotic exposure in mothers rather than representing an intrinsically poor tool. Conventional biomarkers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, and lactate, are time-dependent in their rise and require integration with clinical context and professional experience to yield meaningful diagnostic value. These limitations create a persistent window of diagnostic uncertainty during which adverse outcomes may compound, and it is precisely in this gap that artificial intelligence (AI) offers supplementary clinical value. This structured narrative review synthesizes published literature on AI, machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) applications for NS prediction. Evidence was drawn from peer-reviewed studies identified through a structured search of the PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore databases, retrieving approximately 430 records in total, of which 44 studies met inclusion criteria following title and abstract screening and full-text review. The review incorporated both early-onset sepsis (EOS) and late-onset sepsis (LOS) prediction models, with particular attention to algorithm design, validation methodology, and clinical integration. AI-based models demonstrate substantial discriminative performance when evaluated alongside but not in place of existing clinical tools. Ensemble tree-based classifiers for EOS, including CatBoost (Categorical Boosting) and XGBoost (Extreme Gradient Boosting), report area under the receiver operating characteristic curves
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.