Evidence Hub

Advances in Data-Driven Early Warning Systems for Sepsis Recognition and Intervention in Emergency Care: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Performance and Clinical Outcomes

Abdulkreem A Al-Juhani, R. Desoky, Ziyad Iskander, Khalid T. Alshehri, Abdulaziz A Alshehri, Amaal A Almuhaimid, Nouf G Alharbi, Reham H Mominah et al.

Cureus, 2025

5 citations

Abstract

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition, and early recognition in the emergency department (ED) is crucial for reducing mortality. However, traditional ED sepsis screening tools (e.g., Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA)) often lack sensitivity for early detection. Machine learning (ML)-based early warning systems have been proposed to address this gap by analyzing complex clinical data in real time. To address this, we systematically reviewed studies (2015-2025) assessing ML-based sepsis warning systems in adult EDs. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Included studies reported diagnostic performance and/or clinical outcomes. Overall, a total of 11 studies (primarily retrospective, with a few prospective) were included. ML models using vital signs, laboratory results, and electronic health record (EHR) data demonstrated high discrimination for sepsis, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values often exceeding 0.80, and outperformed traditional scoring tools. Many provided earlier warnings, often two to four hours before sepsis was clinically recognized. Implementation studies showed that ML-based alerts expedited treatment; one multi-center system reduced time to antibiotics by ~1.8 hours when alerts were promptly addressed. Some reports noted reduced organ failure and mortality. However, evidence of improved patient outcomes remains…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free