Trial reportJAMA network open2026
Medical Record Abstraction for Quality Improvement in Sepsis Care Using Artificial Intelligence: A Cluster Randomized Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07581340 (Impact of Automated Sepsis Metric Evaluation on Provider Performance), which is not on this 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.
Impact of Automated Sepsis Metric Evaluation on Provider Performance
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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Hospital quality reporting remains a manual, costly process with critical limitations as a mechanism to improve care outcomes. Objective: To assess whether near-real-time quality measurement, enabled by large language models (LLMs), can improve quality performance as measured by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) quality metric. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-blind, unstratified, cluster randomized trial was conducted between December 13, 2024, and July 8, 2025, at 2 academic emergency departments (EDs) within the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) health system. Participants included all 66 attending physicians who practiced in the UCSD EDs and worked more than 3 shifts per month prior to study initiation. Intervention: Participants were randomized to receive targeted feedback from LLM-determined compliance with SEP-1 at the time of patient discharge or standard process. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall compliance with SEP-1. Secondary outcomes included expert agreement with the LLM SEP-1 determination, 30-day mortality, and intensive care unit admissions of patients with severe sepsis and/or septic shock in the ED. Effect sizes were estimated from a mixed-effects logistic regression model with the intervention group as a fixed effect and a random intercept for physician. Results: The study population included 66 physicians who treated 301 patients (121 in the control group and 180 in the intervention group; median age, 64.3 [IQR, 51.1-75.7] years; 171 [56.8%] male; 52 [17.3%] with chronic kidney disease; 52 [17.3%] with chronic heart failure) who met CMS inclusion criteria for SEP-1. Physicians in the control group had a SEP-1 compliance rate of 70.1%, while those in the intervention group had a rate of 82.9%. Assignment to the intervention group resulted in a 13.0% absolute improvement in SEP-1 compliance (95% CI, 2.5%-23.4%; odds ratio, 2.10 [95% CI, 1.15-3.81]; P = .02) in the mixed-effects model. The largest difference between the intervention group and control group was in noncompletion of the 30-mL/kg fluid bolus component (3 of 180 [1.7%] vs 16 of 121 [13.2%]), a documentation-sensitive component of the quality measure. Agreement between LLM determination and expert review was 92%. No significant differences existed in intensive care unit admissions or 30-day mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized trial of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled medical record abstraction for sepsis care, rapid assessment of SEP-1 performance and targeted feedback improved overall compliance with the measure. AI-driven quality clinical integration may address limitations in existing hospital quality reporting and better support a learning health system. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT07581340.
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.