Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42528858›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Analysis and implications of validation results for a clinical data-based early warning model for geriatric sepsis.

Xuejie Ma, Xinyi Li, Xiaoqiang He, Xin Zou, Xiaowei Ma

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Xuejie MaIntensive Care Unit, Cardiocerebral Vascular Disease Hospital, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.
Xinyi LiIntensive Care Unit, Cardiocerebral Vascular Disease Hospital, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.
Xiaoqiang HeIntensive Care Unit, Cardiocerebral Vascular Disease Hospital, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.
Xin ZouIntensive Care Unit, Cardiocerebral Vascular Disease Hospital, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.
Xiaowei MaIntensive Care Unit, Cardiocerebral Vascular Disease Hospital, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Early Warning ScoreGeriatric AssessmentMachine LearningSepsisAgedAged, 80 and overChinaEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Learning ModelsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificityartificial intelligence (AI)machine learning (ML)modelolder adultssepsisvalidation

Identifiers

PMID42528858
PMCPMC13415379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.