Comparison of Sepsis Definitions as Automated Criteria
Abstract
Objectives Assess the impact of heterogeneity among established sepsis criteria (Sepsis-1, Sepsis-3, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid severe sepsis core measure 1) through the comparison of corresponding sepsis cohorts. Design Retrospective analysis of data extracted from electronic health record. Setting Single, tertiary-care center in St. Louis, MO. Patients Adult, nonsurgical inpatients admitted between January 1, 2012, and January 6, 2018. Interventions None. Measurements and main results In the electronic health record data, 286,759 encounters met inclusion criteria across the study period. Application of established sepsis criteria yielded cohorts varying in prevalence: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event (4.4%), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid severe sepsis core measure 1 (4.8%), International Classification of Disease code (7.2%), Sepsis-3 (7.5%), and Sepsis-1 (11.3%). Between the two modern established criteria, Sepsis-3 (n = 21,550) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event (n = 12,494), the size of the overlap was 7,763. The sepsis cohorts also varied in time from admission to sepsis onset (hr): Sepsis-1 (2.9), Sepsis-3 (4.1), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event (4.6), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid severe sepsis core measure 1 (7.6); sepsis discharge International Classification of Disease code rate: Sepsis-1 (37.…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Imprecise retrospective definitions unavailable in real time, such as billing codes, may complicate the validity of outcome labels.
“Imprecise retrospective definitions unavailable in real time, such as billing codes, may complicate the validity of outcome labels [38, 39].”
From Use of artificial intelligence in critical care: opportunities and obstacles (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 31 · Cited by 29
- Authors
- Yu, S. C., Betthauser, K. D., Gupta, A., Lyons, P. G., Lai, A. M., Kollef, M. H., Payne, P. R. O., & Michelson, A. P.
- Affiliations
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Barnes-Jewish Hospital (US)
- BJC HealthCare (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 2021-02-12
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e433-e443
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3129441165
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 3.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Inflammation biomarkers and pathways
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
- Keywords
- sepsis definitions, Sepsis-3, sepsis prevalence, in-hospital mortality, electronic health record data, hospitalized adults
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Shock, Septic, United States, Databases, Factual, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Sepsis, International Classification of Diseases
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