ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Analysis and implications of validation results for a clinical data-based early warning model for geriatric sepsis.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Sepsis poses a serious threat to the health and lives of older adults and is difficult to identify accurately in its early stages. To address this issue, our team previously developed an early warning model for sepsis in older adults based on machine learning algorithms and conducted preliminary validation. To further validate the model's performance for clinical use, we collected additional clinical data. In the process, we gained some insights. Methods: We collected clinical data from patients aged 60 years or older admitted to the Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit of the General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University. We conducted a secondary evaluation of the predictive and generalization capabilities of the geriatric sepsis sepsis early warning model using multiple metrics (including AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1 score), and analyzed the validation results. Results: Eight hundred fourteen patients were included in the study, comprising 106 positive patients (sepsis patients) and 708 negative patients (non-sepsis patients). After validation, the model's accuracy was 0.801, sensitivity was 0.764, and AUROC was 0.865. Conclusion: In the study, although the AUROC of the further validation showed a slight decrease, the early warning model still performed well. The warning model is indeed helpful in identifying geriatric patients patients with sepsis earlier. The performance deviation observed during the validation phase may stem from multiple factors. Overall, machine learning models remain in a stage requiring continuous refinement and development. They are better suited as auxiliary tools in the medical field, necessitating long-term validation and adjustment rather than operating entirely independently.
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.