Evaluation of a machine learning algorithm for up to 48-hour advance prediction of sepsis using six vital signs
Open accessAbstract
Objective Sepsis remains a costly and prevalent syndrome in hospitals; however, machine learning systems can increase timely sepsis detection using electronic health records. This study validates a gradient boosted ensemble machine learning tool for sepsis detection and prediction, and compares its performance to existing methods.Materials and methods Retrospective data was drawn from databases at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Center and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC). Adult patient encounters without sepsis on admission, and with at least one recording of each of six vital signs (SpO 2, heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) were included. We compared the performance of the machine learning algorithm (MLA) to that of commonly used scoring systems. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was our primary measure of accuracy. MLA performance was measured at sepsis onset, and at 24 and 48 h prior to sepsis onset.Results The MLA achieved an AUROC of 0.88, 0.84, and 0.83 for sepsis onset and 24 and 48 h prior to onset, respectively. These values were superior to those of SIRS (0.66), MEWS (0.61), SOFA (0.72), and qSOFA (0.60) at time of onset. When trained on UCSF data and tested on BIDMC data, sepsis onset AUROC was 0.89.Discussion and conclusion The MLA predicts sepsis up to 48 h in advance and identifies sepsis onset more accurately than commonly used tools, maintaining high performance for sepsis detection when trained and tested on separate datasets.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Our findings were consistent with earlier studies that revealed the value of specific features (e.g., RR, heart rate, body temperature) or those produced by combining others (e.g., triage level, mode of arrival) in optimizing the efficacy of the best model.
“Our findings were consistent with earlier studies that revealed the value of specific features (e.g., RR, heart rate, body temperature)13,16,22 or those produced by combining others (e.g., triage level, mode of arrival) in optimizing the efficacy of the best model.”
From Development and validation of a screening tool for sepsis without laboratory results in the emergency department: a machine learning study (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
The Measurements section (page unavailable) identifies respiratory rate, heart rate, and temperature as inputs selected for their relevance to sepsis prediction. The Results and Discussion (pages unavailable) identify heart rate and temperature among the strongest contributors to prediction quality, but do not identify respiratory rate as a leading feature. The citation is attached to the specific-features clause, not the later examples of triage level and mode of arrival. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNumerous models were tested on the freely accessible MIMIC database.
“numerous models were tested on the freely accessible MIMIC database [27, 33, 52–59]”
From Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (2020) · cites this paper as [27]
The majority of papers were developed in the ICU (n = 15; 54%), followed by hospital wards (n = 7; 25%), the ED (n = 4; 14%), and all settings (n = 2; 7%).
“The majority of papers were developed in the intensive care unit (ICU, n = 15; 54%), followed by hospital wards (n = 7; 25%), the emergency department (ED, n = 4; 14%) and all of these settings (n = 2; 7%).”
From Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (2020) · cites this paper as [27]
The Materials and methods (Data sources; page not supplied) describe this study’s ICU, emergency-department, and floor-unit data, not a count of papers developed in each setting. The Results likewise report patient encounters, not the claimed distribution of 28 papers. Searches for the stated counts and for a review of studies found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 175
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [22]Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. Paper presented at the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2016 Aug.
- [32]Burdick H, Pino E, Gabel-Comeau D, Gu C, Huang H, Lynn-Palevsky A, Das R. Evaluating a sepsis prediction machine learning algorithm using minimal electronic health record data in the emergency department and intensive care unit. bioRxiv 224014; doi: 10.1101/224014. · DOI · Paper page
- Authors
- Barton, C., Chettipally, U., Zhou, Y., Jiang, Z., Lynn-Palevsky, A., Le, S., Calvert, J., & Das, R.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Dascena (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Das, Ritankar
- Venue
- Computers in Biology and Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 109
- Pages
- 79-84
- ISSN
- 0010-4825 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6556419
- OpenAlex
- W2940553617
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 14.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Computers in Biology and Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- IRB
- UCSF
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- sepsis prediction, sepsis detection, vital signs, machine learning, early warning scores, SIRS, Modified Early Warning Score, SOFA, qSOFA, electronic health records, cross-dataset validation
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index, Databases, Factual, Sepsis, Vital Signs, Electronic Health Records
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