External validation of the Epic sepsis predictive model in 2 county emergency departments.
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To describe the diagnostic characteristics of the proprietary Epic sepsis predictive model best practice advisory (BPA) alert for physicians in the emergency department (ED). Materials and Methods: The Epic Sepsis Predictive Model v1.0 (ESPMv1), a proprietary algorithm, is intended to improve provider alerting of patients with a likelihood of developing sepsis. This retrospective cohort study conducted at 2 county EDs from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 evaluated the predictive characteristics of the ESPMv1 for 145 885 encounters. Sepsis was defined according to the Sepsis-3 definition with the onset of sepsis defined as an increase in 2 points on the Sequential Organ Function Assessment (SOFA) score in patients with the ordering of at least one blood culture and antibiotic. Alerting occurred at an Epic recommended model threshold of 6. Results: The ESPMv1 BPA alert was present in 7183 (4.9%) encounters of which 2253 had sepsis, and not present in 138 702 encounters of which 3180 had sepsis. Within a 6-hour time window for sepsis, the ESPMv1 had a sensitivity of 14.7%, specificity of 95.3%, positive predictive value of 7.6%, and negative predictive value of 97.7%. Providers were alerted with a median lead time of 0 minutes (80% CI, −6 hours and 42 minutes to 12 hours and 0 minutes). Discussion: In our population, the ESPMv1 alerted providers with a median lead time of 0 minutes (80% CI, −6 hours and 42 minutes to 12 hours and 0 minutes) and only alerted providers in half of the cases prior to sepsis occurrence. This suggests that the ESPMv1 alert is adding little assistance to physicians identifying sepsis. With clinicians treating sepsis 50% of the time without an alert, pop-ups can only marginally assist in disease identification. Conclusions: The ESPMv1 provides suboptimal diagnostic characteristics for undifferentiated patients in a county ED.
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?
The Epic Sepsis Model version 1 was found to have poor discrimination and calibration in several external validations across different health systems.
“Despite its widespread deployment, this model was found to have poor discrimination and calibration in several external validations across different health systems.12,13,14,15”
From Multicenter Prospective Validation of an Updated Proprietary Sepsis Prediction Model (2026) · cites this paper as [14]
The Discussion reports poor diagnostic performance for ESPMv1 and says the results align with prior external validations. But the Limitations specify that this study covered one health system with two emergency departments, and our copy does not report poor calibration or establish the claim about several validations across different health systems. No page numbers are provided in the copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
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.
Cites
Wong, A., Otles, E., Donnelly, J. P., Krumm, A., McCullough, J., DeTroyer-Cooley, O., Pestrue, J., Phillips, M., Konye, J., Penoza, C., et al. (2021) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2626 · Cited by 995 · see citing works
with the HITEC Investigators, Ancker, J. S., Edwards, A., Nosal, S., Hauser, D., Mauer, E., & Kaushal, R. (2017) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0430-8 · Cited by 709 · cited 1× · see citing works
“18 Although it is unknown if sepsis would have been successfully treated without the alert in 50% of cases, it is unlikely given the distribution, to suggest that those cases would have been completely missed.”
Delahanty, R. J., Alvarez, J., Flynn, L. M., Sherwin, R. L., & Jones, S. S. (2019) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.11.036 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
The epic sepsis model falls short-the importance of external validation
Habib, A. R., Lin, A. L., & Grant, R. W. (2021) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.3333 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Quantification of Sepsis Model Alerts in 24 US Hospitals Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Wong, A., Cao, J., Lyons, P. G., Dutta, S., Major, V. J., Ötleş, E., & Singh, K. (2021) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.35286 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- [1]Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al; Early Goal-Directed Therapy Collaborative Group. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. New Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 1368- 1377. 10.1056/NEJMoa010307 11794169 · DOI · Paper page
- [2]Giannini HM, Ginestra JC, Chivers C, et al A machine learning algorithm to predict severe sepsis and septic shock: development, implementation, and impact on clinical practice. Crit Care Med. 2019; 47: 1485- 1492. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003891 31389839 PMC8635476 · DOI · Paper page
- [3]Downing NL, Rolnick J, Poole SF, et al Electronic health record-based clinical decision support alert for severe sepsis: a randomised evaluation. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019; 28: 762- 768. 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008765 PMC6860967 30872387 · DOI · Paper page
- [4]Sawyer AM, Deal EN, Labelle AJ, et al Implementation of a real-time computerized sepsis alert in nonintensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2011; 39: 469- 473. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318205df85 21169824 · DOI · Paper page
- [6]Umscheid CA, Betesh J, Vanzandbergen C, et al Development, implementation, and impact of an automated early warning and response system for sepsis. J Hosp Med. 2015; 10: 26- 31. 10.1002/jhm.2259 25263548 PMC4410778 · DOI
- [7]Despins LA. Automated detection of sepsis using electronic medical record data: a systematic review. J Healthc Qual. 2016; 39: 322- 333. 10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000066 27631709 · DOI
- [8]Hwang MI, Bond WF, Powell ES. Sepsis alerts in emergency departments: a systematic review of accuracy and quality measure impact. West J Emerg Med. 2020; 21: 1201- 1210. 10.5811/westjem.2020.5.46010 32970576 PMC7514413 · DOI
- [9]Benthin C, Pannu S, Khan A, Gong M, NHLBI Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network. The nature and variability of automated practice alerts derived from electronic health records in a U.S. Nationwide critical care research network. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016; 13: 1784- 1788. 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201603-172BC 27404288 PMC5122489 · DOI · Paper page
- [13]Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996; 22: 707- 710. 10.1007/BF01709751 8844239 · DOI · Paper page
- [14]Rhee C, Dantes RB, Epstein L, Klompas M. Using objective clinical data to track progress on preventing and treating sepsis: CDC’s new “adult sepsis event” surveillance strategy. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019; 28: 305- 309. 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008331 PMC6557151 30254095 · DOI
- [15]Hofford MR, Yu SC, Johnson AEW, Lai AM, Payne PRO, Michelson AP. OpenSep: a generalizable open source pipeline for SOFA score calculation and sepsis-3 classification. JAMIA Open. 2022; 5: ooac105. 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac105 36570030 PMC9772813 · DOI
- [16]Bennett T, Russell S, King J, et al Accuracy of the Epic sepsis prediction model in a regional health system. arXiv, arXiv:1902.07276, preprint: not peer reviewed. · arXiv
- [17]Makam AN, Nguyen OK, Auerbach AD. Diagnostic accuracy and effectiveness of automated electronic sepsis alert systems: a systematic review. J Hosp Med. 2015; 10: 396- 402. 10.1002/jhm.2347 25758641 PMC4477829 · DOI · Paper page
- [19]Rehman HU. A comparison of health outcomes between three counties in the Houston Metropolitan Area: Harris County, Fort Bend County and Brazoria County. Tex Public Health J. 2014; 66: 12.
- [20]Barnato AE, Alexander SL, Linde-Zwirble WT, Angus DC. Racial variation in the incidence, care, and outcomes of severe sepsis: analysis of population, patient, and hospital characteristics. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008; 177: 279- 284. 10.1164/rccm.200703-480OC 17975201 PMC2720103 · DOI · Paper page
- [21]Galiatsatos P, Sun J, Welsh J, Suffredini A. Health disparities and sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the influence of race on sepsis-related mortality. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2019; 6: 900- 908. 10.1007/s40615-019-00590-z 31144133 PMC10875732 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Multicenter Prospective Validation of an Updated Proprietary Sepsis Prediction Model
Wong, A., Currey, D., Schwinne, M., Park-Egan, B., Meyer, S., Gutting, A., Cao, J., Khan, S., Dantes, R., Pan, T., et al. (2026) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.0181 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ostermayer, D. G., Braunheim, B., Mehta, A. M., Ward, J., Andrabi, S., & Sirajuddin, A. M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
- Harris Health System (US)
- Baylor College of Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ostermayer, Daniel G
- Venue
- JAMIA Open
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024-10-08
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- ooae133-ooae133
- ISSN
- 2574-2531 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11560849
- OpenAlex
- W4404432540
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 3.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- JAMIA Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons-TMC (Texas Medical Center) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Keywords
- sepsis, clinical decision support alerts, emergency department, external validation, diagnostic accuracy, Sepsis-3, SOFA score
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