Cited by 101Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMachine Learning in Healthcare

The epic sepsis model falls short-the importance of external validation

Habib, Anand R., Lin, Anthony L., Grant, Richard W.·2021·JAMA Internal Medicine

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.3333

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In cases where remote clinicians monitored the Epic sepsis algorithm outputs, constant interruption led floor nurses to cover the video camera to limit workflow disruption.

    “In cases where remote clinicians were deployed to monitor the algorithm outputs, the constant interruption (up to 18% of hospitalized patients generated an alert) led the floor nurses to cover the video camera to limit workflow disruption. 13,14”

    From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

  • One input variable to the Epic sepsis model was antibiotic orders by a provider, which is a type of data leakage because an infection is already being considered at that point.

    “Before the subsequent model overhaul as a result of the publication (rather than some planned post-deployment evaluation and monitoring), it was observed that one input variable to the model was antibiotic orders by a provider—a type of data leakage since an infection is already being considered at that point.”

    From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 7 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Habib, A. R., Lin, A. L., & Grant, R. W.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2021-08-01
Volume
181
Issue
8
Pages
1040
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3177107382
Cited by
101
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
FWCI
9.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
sepsis, external validation, sepsis risk prediction, sepsis mortality, clinical prediction model
MeSH terms
Humans, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Software, Sepsis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review