Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Development and Validation of SXI++ LNM Algorithm for Sepsis Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a composite machine-learning score plus deep neural network, SXI++ LNM, predicts sepsis six hours before clinical diagnosis with AUC 0.99, precision 99.9%, and accuracy 99.99% on unseen test rows, outperforming the…

desk verdict Retaining Patient_ID with row-level splits makes the reported AUC 0.99 nearly uninterpretable as generalization, and the paper's own tables contradict the abstract's headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22840 v1 pith:MGR6KHW6 submitted 2025-05-28 cs.LG

Dharambir Mahto , Prashant Yadav , Mahesh Banavar , Jim Keany , Alan T Joseph , Srinivas Kilambi This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords EarlySepsisDetectionArtificialIntelligenceSXI++LNMMachineLearningDeepNeuralNetworksClinicalPredictionClassImbalanceICUMonitoring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Sepsis kills roughly 11 million people a year, and early treatment is the main lever for survival, so a model that reliably predicts onset hours before diagnosis would be clinically valuable. This paper claims that SXI++ LNM, a scoring system that blends several machine-learning algorithms with a deep neural network, does exactly that: on held-out rows, it reports AUC 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), precision 99.9%, and accuracy up to 99.99% across three data-distribution scenarios. The same model is compared with COMPOSER, a recent sepsis-prediction model that hedges uncertain cases, and is reported to beat COMPOSER's AUC of 0.91-0.95. Training data come from ICU records across three U.S. hospital systems and public critical-care datasets; the target is sepsis onset at least six hours before clinical diagnosis. If true, this would make SXI++ LNM a strong candidate for real-time ICU alerting, though the authors note that external, non-U.S., non-ICU validation is still missing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the SXI++ Large Numerical Model scoring pipeline: a weighted composite index formed from normalized, correlation-adjusted features, with weights iteratively recalibrated by a deep neural network. Each feature is normalized either as value divided by maximum or as maximum minus value divided by maximum, depending on the sign of its correlation with sepsis; bivariate correlation weights are averaged; Lasso regression updates each feature's min-max mapping; and composite weights from Complement Naive Bayes, XGBoost, Mutual Information, Lasso, and PCA are combined. The proprietary neural network uses a custom kernel initializer that up-weights frequently selected top features, then an iterative system tries positive and negative weight adjustments to maximize class delineation. This mechanism carries the paper's argument because it claims to convert multivariate, imbalanced vital-sign and laboratory data into a single calibrated score that separates septic from non-septic patients.

What would settle it

Take the same three use cases and split so that every row of a given Patient_ID goes entirely into training or entirely into test; then recompute AUC, precision, and accuracy. If the numbers fall well below 0.99 AUC, the original metrics were inflated by patient-level leakage rather than true generalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that SXI++ LNM predicts the SepsisLabel, positive when a patient met sepsis criteria at least six hours before clinical diagnosis, with near-perfect accuracy. The model normalizes each feature by its correlation direction with the target, averages bivariate correlation weights, and then adjusts feature min-max mappings via Lasso regression; five machine-learning algorithms contribute composite weights, and a proprietary deep neural network with custom weight initialization and iterative weight calibration converts the resulting SXI++ score into a super feature for classification. Across three use cases with different class balances, the authors report AUC 0.99-1.00, precision up to 99.9%, and accuracy up to 99.99% on held-out rows, consistently above COMPOSER's reported AUC 0.91-0.95. They also extract a decision-tree pathway, with thresholds on systolic blood pressure, age, and respiration rate, intended as actionable guidance for early detection.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of near-perfect generalization rests on the assumption that the held-out rows are patient-disjoint from the training rows; because Patient_ID is kept as one of the 14 features and the split is described only at the row level, the same patient could appear in both sets, letting the model memorize identifiers instead of learning sepsis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported metrics hold up, clinicians could receive automated alerts up to six hours before sepsis meets diagnostic criteria, creating a window for early antibiotics and fluid resuscitation.
  • The model's strong accuracy at 1.8-2% sepsis prevalence suggests it could operate in real ICUs where sepsis is rare, reducing the alarm fatigue that plagues low-precision screening tools.
  • With an AUC of 0.99 versus COMPOSER's 0.91-0.95, SXI++ LNM would become the leading published sepsis-prediction benchmark, if the comparison is conducted on equivalent held-out data.
  • The decision-tree thresholds could be packaged into standing nursing assessments or electronic health record alerts for early sepsis screening.
  • The authors intend integration with electronic health record systems using interoperability and security standards, which would make real-time deployment feasible if the model generalizes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the decisive check is whether the row-level unseen split is patient-disjoint; retaining Patient_ID as a feature means the same person could appear in both training and test, in which case the model may memorize identifiers rather than physiology.
  • Editorial inference: the six-hour lead time is defined retrospectively by the dataset's sepsis label, so live streaming prediction at the bedside may not reproduce these static-split numbers.
  • Editorial inference: the reported decision-tree thresholds, such as systolic blood pressure above 220 suggesting no sepsis, look dataset-specific and need prospective testing before being used as clinical rules.
  • Editorial inference: if the composite-score-plus-neural-network recipe generalizes, the same approach could be tried for other delayed-diagnosis conditions like acute kidney injury, but this paper provides no evidence for that transfer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript describes the SXI++ Large Numerical Model (LNM), a composite scoring system for early sepsis prediction. The authors clean a large ICU dataset, retain 14 features including Patient_ID, train a deep neural network with a proprietary iterative weight-calibration procedure, and report near-perfect accuracy (99.99%), precision (99.9%), and AUC (0.99–1.00) on 'unseen' test sets across three use cases. They compare these results with published AUCs of the COMPOSER model and conclude SXI++ outperforms the state of the art for predicting sepsis within six hours before clinical diagnosis.

Significance. If the reported performance were valid, a sepsis prediction tool with 99%+ precision and AUC ~0.99 would be a major contribution to critical care. The paper does provide a concrete, if elaborate, algorithm description and reports detailed metric tables with confidence intervals. However, the evidence as presented does not support the central claim: the evaluation protocol has a critical patient-level leakage risk, the benchmark comparison is not a fair head-to-head, and the dataset provenance is unclear. The strengths are the attempt to combine multiple algorithms and the explicit reporting of sensitivity analyses across class-imbalance scenarios, but these are undercut by the methodological issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.1, 2.3] Section 2.3 lists Patient_ID as one of the 14 retained features, while Section 2.1 describes splitting data by row counts (e.g., 'unseen test datasets contained 50,000 rows') with no patient-level grouping. Because the dataset is composed of ICU time-series rows (one row per patient-hour, with Hour and ICULOS recorded), the same patient will appear in both training and test partitions under a row-level split. This allows the model to memorize Patient_ID or exploit near-duplicate adjacent rows, trivially inflating all reported metrics. The paper does not provide overlap statistics, a patient-disjoint split, or an ablation without Patient_ID; without such evidence, the AUC, precision, and accuracy in Tables 2–5 cannot be attributed to learning sepsis physiology.
  2. [2.5, Table 5] The claimed outperformance over COMPOSER is based on comparing SXI++ metrics with published COMPOSER AUCs (0.91–0.95) from refs 24 and 25. The text states these results were obtained 'on the same dataset we use,' but the cited COMPOSER papers report validation on large hospital-system cohorts (e.g., 515,720 patients across two healthcare systems), not on the 1.55-million-row dataset described here. No head-to-head evaluation on identical held-out data is performed. This makes the 'state-of-the-art outperformance' claim unsubstantiated.
  3. [2.2] The dataset provenance is unclear and internally contradictory. The methods section says data were obtained from 'three geographically distinct U.S. hospital systems' and later that the data include 'two publicly available datasets from Kaggle and ... PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2019.' The PhysioNet 2019 challenge dataset covers two hospital systems (BIDMC and Emory) and has a very similar schema (Hour, HR, O2Sat, ..., Patient_ID, ICULOS, SepsisLabel). The paper does not describe how these sources were combined, whether duplicate patients were removed, or what the third hospital system contributed. This matters because the 'diverse clinical environments' generalization claim depends on the data actually representing three distinct systems.
  4. [Tables 2–4 and Section 2.1] The reported evaluation protocol is internally inconsistent. For Case 3, Section 2.1 states a training dataset of 10,000 rows (3,000 sepsis, 7,000 non-sepsis), but Table 4 lists 'Training 35404, Testing 2,000, validation 5000', which is incompatible with that description. For Case 2, the stated 50,000-row training set is also inconsistent with the 35,404 + 10,000 + 5,000 split sum in Table 3. Additionally, Table 2 labels a row 'Recall (NPV)' and reports 100, conflating recall (sensitivity) with negative predictive value. These discrepancies prevent reproduction of the evaluation and undermine confidence in the reported metrics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Highlights] In the Highlights box and Abstract, 'state of the art' is not defined; the only comparator is COMPOSER, and the claim should be restricted to that comparison or a systematic literature benchmark should be provided.
  2. [2.2] Section 2.2 describes the SepsisLabel as 'indicating whether a patient met sepsis criteria at least 6 hours before the clinical prediction of sepsis'; this wording is ambiguous. In the PhysioNet 2019 challenge, the label marks the hour of sepsis onset, and prediction is meant to occur up to 6 hours prior. Please clarify.
  3. [3, Figure 3] Section 3's decision-tree interpretation states that an SBP exceeding 220 'may suggest a potential absence of sepsis'; this is clinically implausible and likely an artifact of the shallow decision tree. It should be removed or tempered.
  4. [References] References 14 and 15 duplicate references 11 and 12 (Shashikumar et al. and Boussina et al.); please consolidate.
  5. [2.4] The 80/20 train-test split mentioned in the 'Working of Proprietary Deep Neural Network' subsection conflicts with the 70/20/10 split described in 'Model Training and Evaluation'; please reconcile these descriptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The predictive-accuracy claim is not circular: SXI++ scoring is fitted on training/validation and evaluated on separately described unseen test sets, and the self-citations to the same-author patents document components without substituting for the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a supervised model-selection pipeline: Sections 2.4 and 2.5 fit normalization directions, Lasso updates, composite ML weights, DNN weights, the alpha parameter (0.5 to 1.5), and iterative weight calibration using training, testing, and validation splits, while Section 2.1 separately describes 'unseen' test datasets of 50,000 rows. The reported test AUC, precision, and accuracy are computed after this fit on the unseen sets; no equation defines those test metrics as functions of fitted weights on the same rows, and no test-label information is inserted into the scoring equations. The four cited provisional patents (references 19-22) are authored by the same inventor and describe SXI++/LNM components, but the manuscript also specifies normalization, Lasso, composite-weight, DNN, and calibration steps in the text, so these self-citations are provenance rather than load-bearing circular support. The Patient_ID row-split leakage concern and the comparison with published COMPOSER AUCs are validity and external-benchmark risks, not circularity, because the paper does not explicitly state that test performance is constructed from training labels or from overlapping patients.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on the correctness of the sepsis labels, on the assumption that row-level splits keep patients separate, and on the comparability of COMPOSER's published AUCs. The proprietary composite score and tuning parameters are fitted to data, and the invented SXI++ entities have no independent falsifiable handle outside the paper.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (SXI++ tuning parameter) = 0.5 to 1.5 in increments of 0.1
    Equation SXI++_new = alpha * SXI++_current; alpha is varied to optimize performance on validation data (Section 2.4).
  • Composite feature weights from bivariate correlation, Lasso, and ML algorithms = not reported (proprietary)
    Weights are derived from the training data and iteratively recalibrated to maximize delineation; no final weight values are listed.
  • DNN hyperparameters (neurons, activation, optimizer, learning rate, batch size, epochs) = not reported
    Chosen via Bayesian optimization and stratified k-fold cross-validation; final values are not stated in the manuscript.
  • User-specified percentage adjustments for positive/negative weighted features = not reported
    In the actionable-insights section, features are multiplied by (1 +/- percentage) based on user input and sign of correlation; no fixed percentage is disclosed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The SepsisLabel ground truth is correct and timestamps align with the six-hour-before-diagnosis definition.
    The paper relies on labels from PhysioNet/Kaggle and hospital data without independent adjudication; Methods 2.2 describes the target variable.
  • domain assumption The data splits are patient-disjoint (row-level split preserves patient independence).
    Section 2.1 describes splitting the cleaned dataset into subsets and references rows, and Patient_ID is retained as a feature in Section 2.3; the analysis assumes no patient appears in both training and test.
  • ad hoc to paper COMPOSER's published AUC values on its own cohorts are directly comparable to SXI++ results on this dataset.
    Table 5 compares SXI++ to COMPOSER AUCs from refs 24 and 25, which were trained and tested on different hospital cohorts, not on the same test folds as SXI++.
  • ad hoc to paper The dataset described as three U.S. hospital systems is accurately sourced and not simply the PhysioNet 2019 public challenge data.
    Methods 2.2 lists features identical to PhysioNet Challenge 2019, and Methods 2.1 mentions BIDMC and Emory plus a third site; no data identifiers are provided.
  • domain assumption The proprietary SXI++ scoring equations produce the composite score as described, including alpha scaling and iterative weight updates.
    Section 2.4 gives a high-level description but the exact weight computation is not fully specified and is patent-pending.
invented entities (3)
  • SXI++ composite score
    purpose: A one-dimensional scoring system that summarizes multiple clinical features for sepsis risk and serves as a super feature for the DNN.
    The score is constructed from correlations and fitted ML weights; no external benchmark or public implementation is provided, only patent citations.
  • Base SXI++ Flag
    purpose: A binary label comparing each individual score to the base SXI++ score, used for Lasso adjustment and DNN training.
    Defined in Section 2.4; no external validation or calibration evidence is presented.
  • Large Numerical Model (LNM)
    purpose: Framing label for the proprietary deep learning architecture that processes large numerical EHR datasets.
    The term is not formally defined, and the architecture is described only at a high level with no code or model card.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Development and Validation of SXI++ LNM Algorithm for Sepsis Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MGR6KHW6

@misc{pith2026250522840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Development and Validation of SXI++ LNM Algorithm for Sepsis Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MGR6KHW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22840}
}
read the original abstract

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition affecting over 48.9 million people globally and causing 11 million deaths annually. Despite medical advancements, predicting sepsis remains a challenge due to non-specific symptoms and complex pathophysiology. The SXI++ LNM is a machine learning scoring system that refines sepsis prediction by leveraging multiple algorithms and deep neural networks. This study aims to improve robustness in clinical applications and evaluates the predictive performance of the SXI++ LNM for sepsis prediction. The model, utilizing a deep neural network, was trained and tested using multiple scenarios with different dataset distributions. The model's performance was assessed against unseen test data, and accuracy, precision, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. THE SXI++ LNM outperformed the state of the art in three use cases, achieving an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00). The model demonstrated a precision of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.8-100.0) and an accuracy of 99.99% (95% CI: 99.98-100.0), maintaining high reliability.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sriya.AI, Atlanta, GA

    work page

  2. [2]

    Associate Professor, Department of ECE, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, USA

    work page

  3. [3]

    Office of the Chief Medical Officer ,CMO CommonSpirit St Mary Medical Center, Long Beach, CA Author Contribution (I) Conception and design: Srinivas Kilambi (II) Administrative support: Prashant Yadav (III) Provision of study materials or patients: Srinivas Kilambi, Mahesh Banavar & Jim Keany (IV) Collection and assembly of data: Alan T Joseph (V) Data an...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Key Findings on Early Sepsis Prediction Models: • SXI++ LNM: Achieves near-perfect accuracy (~99%) with high precision (AUC 0.99), can potentially excel in early sepsis detection and improving patient outcomes

    work page

  5. [5]

    What is known and what is New: • Known: Early sepsis detection is critical, and advanced machine-learning models have been developed to address this challenge. • New: This manuscript highlights SXI++ LNM's dynamic deep learning framework and its exceptional performance across various clinical datasets, can significantly enhance early sepsis prediction

    work page

  6. [6]

    • Real-World Utility: Consistent performance across diverse datasets positions SXI++ LNM as a reliable tool for healthcare providers

    Implications and Actions Needed: • Improved Patient Care: SXI++ LNM's high accuracy supports timely interventions, reducing sepsis mortality and improving adherence to sepsis management protocols. • Real-World Utility: Consistent performance across diverse datasets positions SXI++ LNM as a reliable tool for healthcare providers. • Adoption of Predictive T...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Introduction Background

    work page

  8. [8]

    Worldwide, around 48.9 million people are affected by sepsis annually, resulting in 11 million deaths (2, 3)

    Sepsis, a critical condition resulting from a severe immune response to infection, is among the leading global causes of death (1). Worldwide, around 48.9 million people are affected by sepsis annually, resulting in 11 million deaths (2, 3). It is also one of the costliest medical conditions to manage. Prior to the COVID -19 pandemic, sepsis treatment cos...

    work page

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    The COMPOSER algorithm is a deep learning model specifically designed for early sepsis prediction, with a focus on reducing false alarms and ensuring reliable predictions. COMPOSER incorporates three key modules: (1) a weighted input layer that prioritizes recent clinical meas...

  2. [10]

    A recent study introduced COMPOSER (Conformal Multidimensional Prediction of Sepsis Risk), a deep learning model designed to enhance early sepsis prediction. COMPOSER is unique in its ability to flag unfamiliar cases —resulting from erroneous data, missing values, or distribut...

  3. [11]

    Epic is an electronic medical record providing a predictive alert system for sepsis, the Epic Sepsis Model (ESM) Inpatient Predictive Analytic Tool

    Earlier treatment of sepsis leads to decreased mortality. Epic is an electronic medical record providing a predictive alert system for sepsis, the Epic Sepsis Model (ESM) Inpatient Predictive Analytic Tool. External validation of this system is lacking. Th is study aims to eva...

  4. [12]

    Sepsis remains a leading cause of mortality globally, with existing detection models such as SOFA and SIRS exhibiting limited sensitivity and specificity. Machine learning -based approaches like COMPOSER have demonstrated potential, yet challenges persist in adapting to comple...

  5. [13]

    The COMPOSER model, on the other hand, leverages a conformal prediction framework to reduce false alarms, ensuring reliable predictions even in the presence of data distribution shifts. While COMPOSER is widely used and available for real -world clinical ap plications, its lim...

  6. [14]

    Previous studies predominantly employed machine learning techniques to address the challenge of early sepsis prediction, particularly in identifying high -risk patients in clinical environments. However, these studies often struggled to interpret and explai n the influence of ...

  7. [15]

    unseen data

    Methods: 2.1 Methodology Overview Since the research involved secondary analysis of anonymized data and did not include direct interaction with or intervention in human subjects, an ethics board review was not required. The study did not involve sensitive or personal data that...

  8. [16]

    It identifies septic patients approximately 12.2 hours before ICU antibiotic administration and 2.1 hours before ED interventions

    Early Sepsis Detection in ICUs and EDs: COMPOSER provides early warnings of sepsis onset, enabling timely interventions. It identifies septic patients approximately 12.2 hours before ICU antibiotic administration and 2.1 hours before ED interventions

  9. [17]

    Clinical Workflow Integration: It integrates seamlessly with clinical systems, offering actionable insights to clinicians through alerts and reducing unnecessary resource use

  10. [18]

    Limitations

    Improved Patient Outcomes: A quasi-experimental study at UC San Diego demonstrated that COMPOSER led to a 1.9% reduction in in-hospital sepsis mortality and a 5.0% increase in sepsis bundle compliance. Limitations

  11. [19]

    Accuracy Limitations: Although COMPOSER achieves high AUC values (ICU: 0.925–0.953; ED: 0.938–0.945), it falls short of the near-perfect performance achieved by SXI++ LNM

  12. [20]

    False Negative Risk: While it minimizes false positives, the indeterminate class may include some septic patients, potentially delaying interventions

  13. [21]

    Adaptability: COMPOSER’s reliance on static conformal prediction may hinder its ability to handle high-dimensional or complex data as effectively as more dynamic systems like SXI++. Comparison with SXI++ LNM The SXI++ Large Numerical Model (LNM) employs a dynamic scoring syste...

  14. [22]

    Imbalanced Datasets: SXI++ addresses class imbalances using advanced weight adjustments, ensuring superior performance in datasets with low sepsis prevalence (e.g., 1.8%)

  15. [23]

    Complex and High-Dimensional Data: The SXI++ framework optimizes features dynamically, outperforming COMPOSER in settings with heterogeneous patient populations

  16. [24]

    Precision Critical Applications: In scenarios demanding near-perfect accuracy to avoid misclassification, SXI++’s precision is unparalleled

  17. [25]

    Adaptability: SXI++ excels in adapting to distributional shifts and unseen test data, while COMPOSER relies more on its static conformal predictions

  18. [26]

    One critical indicator is a Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) that exceeds 220, which may suggest a potential absence of sepsis

    Results: Fig: 3 Sepsis Detection Decision Tree Graph From the tree in (Fig 3) we can conclude that (pathways for early sepsis detection): Patients likely to have sepsis should be detected within a 6-hour window if specific conditions are met. One critical indicator is a Systol...

  19. [27]

    Conclusions In this study, we thoroughly explored the efficacy of the SXI++ LNM framework for early sepsis detection, a critical area of concern in healthcare where timely intervention can significantly impact patient outcomes. By integrating advanced deep neural netw ork meth...

  20. [28]

    Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al.The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287. PMID: 26903338; PMCID: PMC4968574

    2016

  21. [29]

    CDC Prevention Epicenter Program

    Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, et al. CDC Prevention Epicenter Program. Incidence and Trends of Sepsis in US Hospitals Using Clinical vs Claims Data, 2009-2014. JAMA. 2017 Oct 3;318(13):1241-1249. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13836. PMID: 28903154; PMCID: PMC57103 96

    2009

  22. [30]

    QualityNet —inpatient hospitals specifications manual

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. QualityNet —inpatient hospitals specifications manual. Quality website. https://www.qualitynet.org/inpatient/specifications-manuals. Accessed August, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Ann Emerg Med

    Villar J, Clement JP, Stotts J, et al .Many emergency department patients with severe sepsis and septic shock do not meet diagnostic criteria within 3 hours of arrival. Ann Emerg Med. 2014 Jul;64(1):48 -54. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.02.023. Epub 2014 Mar 27. PMID: 24680548

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    JMIR Med Inform

    Desautels T, Calvert J, Hoffman J, et al .Prediction of Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit With Minimal Electronic Health Record Data: A Machine Learning Approach. JMIR Med Inform. 2016 Sep 30;4(3):e28. doi: 10.2196/medinform.5909. PMID: 27694098; PMCID: PMC5065680

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    BMJ Open

    Mao Q, Jay M, Hoffman JL, et al .Multicentre validation of a sepsis prediction algorithm using only vital sign data in the emergency department, general ward and ICU. BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 26;8(1):e017833. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017833. PMID: 29374661; PMCID: PMC5829820

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174708

    Horng S, Sontag DA, Halpern Y , et al .Creating an automated trigger for sepsis clinical decision support at emergency department triage using machine learning. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174708. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174708

    doi

  27. [35]

    BMC Emerg Med

    Brown SM, Jones J, Kuttler KG, et al .Prospective evaluation of an automated method to identify patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in the emergency department. BMC Emerg Med. 2016 Aug 22;16(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12873-016-0095-0. PMID: 27549755; PMCID: PMC4994262

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Crit Care Med

    Reyna MA, Josef CS, Jeter R, et al .Early Prediction of Sepsis From Clinical Data: The PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2019. Crit Care Med. 2020 Feb;48(2):210 -217. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004145. PMID: 31939789; PMCID: PMC6964870

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    I don’t know

    Supreeth P. Shashikumar, Gabriel Wardi, et al. Artificial intelligence sepsis prediction algorithm learns to say “I don’t know”. npj Digital Medicine (2021) 4:134

    2021

  30. [38]

    Giuliano, K. K. Physiological monitoring for critically ill patients: testing a predictive model for the early detection of sepsis. AJCC 16, 122–130 (2007). quiz 131

    2007

  31. [39]

    Shashikumar, S.P

    Boussina, A. Shashikumar, S.P. Malhotra A. et al. Impact of a deep learning sepsis prediction model on quality of care and survival. npj Digit. Med. 7, 14 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    CRITICALCARE:SPECIALFEATURESV olume165,Issue6P1421-1430June2024Open AccessDownload Full Issue Hospital-Onset Sepsis Warrants Expanded Investigation and Consideration as a Unique Clinical Entity

  33. [42]

    Boussina A., Shashikumar S.P., Malhotra A. et al. Impact of a deep learning sepsis prediction model on quality of care and survival. npj Digit. Med. 7, 14 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00986-6

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    Wang DH., Jia HM., Zheng, X. et al. Attributable mortality of ARDS among critically ill patients with sepsis: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study. BMC Pulm Med 24, 110 (2024)

    2024

  35. [44]

    Vincent J.L., Moreno R., Takala J. et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med 22, 707 –710 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01709751

    1996 doi

  36. [45]

    el Epic Sepsis Model Inpatient Predictive Analytic Tool: A Validation Study

    Cull J, Brevetta R, Gerac J, et. el Epic Sepsis Model Inpatient Predictive Analytic Tool: A Validation Study. Crit Care Explor. 2023 Jun 30;5(7):e0941. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000941. PMID: 37405252; PMCID: PMC10317482

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    Kilambi (2024) AI Square Enabled by Sriya Expert Index (SXI): Method of Determining and Use

    S. Kilambi (2024) AI Square Enabled by Sriya Expert Index (SXI): Method of Determining and Use. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/549,553, 4 Feb 2024

    2024

  38. [47]

    Kilambi (2024) AI Square Enabled by Sriya Expert Index (SXI) Plus Reinforcement Learning

    S. Kilambi (2024) AI Square Enabled by Sriya Expert Index (SXI) Plus Reinforcement Learning. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/553,335, 14 Feb 2024

    2024

  39. [48]

    Kilambi (2024) AI Square Enabled by Sriya Expert Index (SXI): Generative AI

    S. Kilambi (2024) AI Square Enabled by Sriya Expert Index (SXI): Generative AI. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/554,252, 16 Feb 2024

    2024

  40. [49]

    Kilambi (2024) Processing of Large Numerical Models (LNM) by AI2 enabled SXI

    S. Kilambi (2024) Processing of Large Numerical Models (LNM) by AI2 enabled SXI. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/575,991, 8 Apr 2024

    2024

  41. [50]

    AutoML: A survey of the state -of-the-art,

    Xin He, Kaiyong Zhao, Xiaowen Chu, “AutoML: A survey of the state -of-the-art,” Knowledge-Based Systems, V olume 212, 2021

    2021

  42. [51]

    Boussina, A., Shashikumar, S.P., Malhotra, A. et al. Impact of a deep learning sepsis prediction model on quality of care and survival. npj Digit. Med. 7, 14 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746 -023-00986-6

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    I don’t know

    Supreeth P. Shashikumar, Gabriel Wardi, Atul Malhotra et. al. Artificial intelligence sepsis prediction algorithm learns to say “I don’t know”. npj Digital Medicine (2021) 4:134; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00504-6

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.