ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Predicting Sepsis and Septic Shock Among Patients with Documented Fever at Emergency Department Triage Using Patients' Historical Data.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 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
Abstract
This study aimed to develop an interpretable machine learning-based scoring system for predicting sepsis and septic shock among febrile patients at emergency department (ED) triage using longitudinal data. This retrospective, single-center study included adult patients, presented to ED of tertiary academic hospital with fever from January 2016 to December 2021. Using the AutoScore framework, we developed a novel scoring system for predicting sepsis and septic shock at the triage stage, incorporating nine variables and a maximum score of 29. The predictive performance of our score was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and its performance was compared with that of two existing scoring systems: the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). Our model incorporated nine variables including initial vital signs, age, baseline platelet count, total bilirubin, and creatinine levels. Among these, initial systolic blood pressure was identified as the most important predictor. AUROC of our model was 0.844 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.812-0.875) in predicting septic shock and 0.703 (95% CI, 0.687-0.720) for sepsis. Compared to qSOFA ≥ 2 (AUROC: 0.605) and MEWS ≥ 5 (AUROC: 0.678), our scoring system demonstrated superior predictive performance for septic shock. For comparable specificity levels (ranging from 0.50 to 0.95), our scoring system achieved higher sensitivity than MEWS. Our scoring system is an interpretable and practical scoring tool for predicting sepsis and septic shock among patients with documented fever at ED triage using patient's longitudinal data.
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.