ReviewCureus2026
Real-Time Artificial Intelligence for Early Sepsis Prediction Using Dynamic Clinical Data: A Systematic Review.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and delayed recognition continues to compromise timely intervention. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly applied to continuously updated clinical data to facilitate earlier detection of sepsis; however, the quality, interpretability, and clinical readiness of these models remain uncertain. This systematic review evaluated real-time AI models designed for early sepsis prediction using dynamic hospital data. A structured search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science identified studies published between January 2015 and June 2025. Eligible studies included adult hospitalized populations, employed machine learning or deep learning approaches using sequential or continuously updated data, and reported predictive performance for sepsis onset detection. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted across intensive care units, emergency departments, and multicenter hospital systems, with sample sizes ranging from several hundred to more than 500,000 patients. Model architectures included gradient boosting methods, neural networks, recurrent survival models, and deep learning prediction platforms. Reported discriminatory performance was moderate to high, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values generally ranging from 0.83 to above 0.95, and several studies demonstrated clinically meaningful lead times before sepsis onset or treatment initiation. More recent investigations increasingly incorporated external validation, transfer learning, false-alert mitigation strategies, and explainability methods, such as feature attribution and Shapley additive explanations analysis. Risk of bias assessment using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool indicated that most studies had a moderate overall risk of bias, primarily due to retrospective design, heterogeneous sepsis definitions, and limitations in analytical reporting. Current evidence suggests that real-time AI shows considerable promise for early sepsis recognition; however, prospective validation, calibration assessment, workflow integration, and demonstration of consistent patient benefit remain essential before widespread clinical implementation can be justified.
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.