ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
External validation of the CALLY index and development of a laboratory-based model for 28-day mortality in sepsis: a two-center study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Background: Early identification of high-risk sepsis patients remains challenging. The C-reactive protein-Albumin-Lymphocyte (CALLY) index, which integrates inflammation, nutritional status, and immune function, may hold prognostic value in this setting. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed sepsis patients from two Chinese hospitals (discovery cohort: Results: The non-survivors had markedly lower CALLY values (median 0.2 vs. 0.8, Conclusion: The CALLY index is an acceptable, readily available biomarker strongly associated with 28-day mortality in sepsis. A prediction model incorporating CALLY, LDH, TP, and PLT offers performance comparable or superior to conventional severity scores and may support early risk stratification in clinical practice, provided that calibration-in-the-large is updated when the model is applied to settings with substantially different baseline mortality.
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.