SynthesisTechnology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine2024
Diagnostic performance of machine-learning algorithms for sepsis prediction: An updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Infectious Diseases in Older Adults: Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Applications.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Neutrophil-based single-cell sequencing combined with transcriptome sequencing to explore a prognostic model of sepsis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly identification of sepsis has been shown to significantly improve patient prognosis.
objectiveTherefore, the aim of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of machine-learning algorithms for sepsis prediction.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, covering literature up to December 2023. The keywords included machine learning, sepsis and prediction. After screening, data were extracted and analysed from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Key evaluation metrics included sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) for diagnostic accuracy.
resultsThe meta-analysis included a total of 21 studies with a data sample size of 4,158,941. Overall, the pooled sensitivity was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-0.90; P< 0.001; I2= 99.7%), the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.86-0.94; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.91-0.96). The subgroup analysis revealed that in the emergency department setting (6 studies), the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI = 0.68-0.87; P< 0.001; I2= 99.6%), the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.92-0.96). In the Intensive Care Unit setting (11 studies), the sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.75-0.97; P< 0.001; I2= 98.3%), the specificity was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.75-0.92; P< 0.001; I2= 99.9%), and the AUC was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.91-0.95). Due to the limited number of studies in the in-hospital and mixed settings (n< 3), no pooled analysis was performed.
conclusionMachine-learning algorithms have demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy in predicting the occurrence of sepsis, showing potential for clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.