ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of different AI systems for diagnosing sepsis, septic shock, and cardiogenic shock: a retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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 based predictive models for early sepsis detection in intensive care units: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Cardiogenic Shock Management in the Modern Era: A Narrative Review of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
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
Sepsis, septic shock, and cardiogenic shock are life-threatening conditions associated with high mortality rates, but differentiating them is complex because they share certain symptoms. Using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III database and artificial intelligence (AI), we aimed to increase diagnostic precision, focusing on Bayesian network classifiers (BNCs) and comparing them with other AI methods. Data from 5970 adults, including 950 patients with cardiogenic shock, 1946 patients with septic shock, and 3074 patients with sepsis, were extracted for this study. Of the original 51 variables included in the data records, 12 were selected for constructing the predictive model. The data were divided into training and validation sets at an 80:20 ratio, and the performance of the BNCs was evaluated and compared with that of other AI models, such as the one rule classifier (OneR), classification and regression tree (CART), and an artificial neural network (ANN), in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1-score. The BNCs exhibited an accuracy of 87.6% to 91.5%. The CART model demonstrated a notable 91.6% accuracy when only three decision levels were used, whereas the intricate ANN model reached 90.5% accuracy. Both the BNCs and the CART model allowed clear interpretation of the predictions. BNCs have the potential to be valuable tools in diagnostic tasks, with an accuracy, sensitivity, and precision comparable, in some cases, to those of ANNs while demonstrating superior interpretability.
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.