ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning model to predict sepsis in ICU patients with intracerebral hemorrhage.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cerebrospinal Fluid Hemopexin as a Candidate Biomarker for Secondary Sepsis and In-Hospital Outcome After Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: An Exploratory Translational Proteomics Study.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Management and Prediction of Acute Pancreatitis Severity Using AI: A Surgical Perspective.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Transforming Intracerebral Hemorrhage Care with Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Hybrid phenotype-guided modeling across algorithm-feature regimes with application to ICU mortality prediction for Acinetobacter baumannii.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Predictive Healthcare: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are highly susceptible to sepsis. This study evaluates the efficacy of machine learning (ML) models in predicting sepsis risk in intensive care units (ICUs) patients with ICH. We conducted a retrospective analysis on ICH patients using the MIMIC-IV database, randomly dividing them into training and validation cohorts. We identified sepsis prognostic factors using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) and backward stepwise logistic regression. Several machine learning algorithms were developed and assessed for predictive accuracy, with external validation performed using the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD). We analyzed 2,214 patients, including 1,550 in the training set, 664 in the validation set, and 513 for external validation using the eICU-CRD. The Random Forest (RF) model outperformed others, achieving Area Under the Curves (AUCs) of 0.912 in training, 0.832 in internal validation, and 0.798 in external validation. Neural Network and Logistic Regression models recorded training AUCs of 0.840 and 0.804, respectively. ML models, especially the RF model, effectively predict sepsis in ICU patients with ICH, enabling early identification and management of high-risk cases.
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.