ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Interpretable admission-stage machine learning for early Sepsis-3 identification in the emergency department.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objectives: Artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support systems have emerged as promising tools for improving early sepsis recognition in emergency departments. This study aimed to develop and evaluate interpretable machine learning models for identifying Sepsis-3-defined sepsis using routinely available admission-stage variables and to compare their performance with conventional biomarkers and the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS). Methods: This secondary analysis used a publicly available prospective cohort of 1,572 adult emergency department patients with suspected community-onset sepsis. The outcome was Sepsis-3-defined sepsis. Thirteen demographic, physiological, and laboratory admission variables were evaluated. Following a stratified 70:30 train-test split, missing data were handled using multivariate imputation by chained equations, and feature selection was performed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression. Penalized logistic regression (LR), Explainable Boosting Machine (EBM), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) models were developed using five-fold cross-validation. Performance was evaluated by discrimination, classification, calibration, decision curve analysis, and explainability. Results: Among 1,572 adult patients, 560 met the Sepsis-3 criteria. In the internal holdout test set, AUROC values were 0.753 (LR), 0.763 (XGBoost), 0.767 (LightGBM), and 0.766 (EBM). Conventional biomarkers and SIRS showed lower discrimination (AUROC 0.599-0.693), whereas a biomarker-only logistic regression model achieved an AUROC of 0.710. No significant AUROC differences were observed among the machine learning models. LightGBM achieved the numerically highest AUROC and accuracy, whereas EBM achieved the highest sensitivity (0.845). Age, procalcitonin, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were the most influential predictors. Conclusions: Interpretable machine learning models based on routinely available emergency department admission variables provided moderate discrimination, clinically relevant sensitivity, and transparent predictor effects for identifying Sepsis-3-defined sepsis. Compared with conventional biomarkers, SIRS, and a biomarker-only logistic regression model, the machine learning models generally showed higher discrimination, although the magnitude and statistical significance of these differences varied across comparators. External validation is required before clinical implementation.
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.