Development and multicenter external validation of A Data-Driven Scoring System for Early and Rapid Identification of Sepsis in Emergency Departments
Jin, Y.; Wang, Y.; Huang, X.; Wacker, D. A.; Puskarich, M. A.; Xie, F.
Show abstract
ImportanceSepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Timely recognition and treatment in the emergency department (ED), often referred to as the "golden window," are critical to improving outcomes. Yet, current diagnostic tools either demonstrate limited accuracy or rely on laboratory results that are not immediately available during initial ED evaluation, constraining rapid and reliable sepsis identification in the ED. ObjectiveTo develop and externally validate a data-driven interpretable score for early identification of sepsis in the ED across three large health systems. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study used electronic health records from three health systems. The primary derivation cohort included all ED visits at 11 hospitals within the M Health Fairview system (Minnesota, 2019-2025). Two external cohorts include ED visits from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC, Boston, 2011-2019) extracted from the MIMIC-IV-ED database, and ED visits from the Stanford Health Care (Stanford, 2020-2022) sourced from the MC-MED database. In our analysis, completed in August 2025, we developed the Emergency Sepsis Risk Prediction (ESRP) score using the AutoScore framework. We evaluated its performance against commonly used bedside tools, including quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), as well as logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF) models. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was sepsis diagnosis during the ED or hospital stay, determined from ICD-9 and ICD-10 discharge codes. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). ResultsThe study included a total of 2,193,244 ED visits across three sites: 1,626,055 in the Minnesota cohort (1,271,865 for model derivation, and 354,190 for internal validation), and 448,804 and 118,385 in the BIDMC and Stanford external validation cohorts, respectively. In Minnesota internal validation, the ESRP score achieved an AUROC of 0.820 (95% CI, 0.810- 0.825) and an AUPRC of 0.054 (95% CI, 0.051-0.058). In the BIDMC cohort, the ESRP achieved an AUROC of 0.838 (95% CI, 0.833-0.842), compared with 0.636 (95% CI, 0.633- 0.640) for qSOFA and 0.760 (95% CI, 0.757-0.765) for NEWS. In the Stanford cohort, the ESRP achieved an AUROC of 0.892 (95% CI, 0.887-0.898), compared with 0.697 (95% CI, 0.684-0.716) for qSOFA and 0.870 (95% CI, 0.861-0.881) for NEWS. ConclusionsThe ESRP score, based on 10 easily obtainable triage variables, provided accurate, generalizable, and interpretable early sepsis identification across diverse ED populations. Its simplicity and strong performance suggest potential for integration into routine ED triage workflows to support timely sepsis care.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- AKI Risk Score (AKI-RiSc): Developing an Interpretable Clinical Score for Early Identification of Acute Kidney Injury for Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department 95%
- Predicting bloodstream infection outcome using machine learning 94%
- Imputation of PaO2 from SpO2 values from the MIMIC-III Critical Care Database Using Machine-Learning Based Algorithms 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis 96%
- Derivation and validation of a triage tool for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study 95%
- Clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 U.S. emergency departments 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Score for Emergency Risk Prediction (SERP): An Interpretable Machine Learning AutoScore–Derived Triage Tool for Predicting Mortality after Emergency Admissions 96%
- Epidemiology and costs of post-sepsis morbidity, nursing care dependency, and mortality in Germany 92%
- Consistency of performance of adverse outcome prediction models for hospitalized COVID-19 patients 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and validation of automated computer aided-risk score for predicting the risk of in-hospital mortality using first electronically recorded blood test results and vital signs for COVID-19 hospital admissions: a retrospective development and validation study 95%
- Development and validation of a clinical risk score to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in emergency department patients: The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score (CCIS) 94%
- Use of the first National Early Warning Score recorded within 24 hours of admission to estimate the risk of in-hospital mortality in unplanned COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A deep learning model for clinical outcome prediction using longitudinal inpatient electronic health records 94%
- A Machine Learning Approach to Identifying Delirium from Electronic Health Records 92%
- Evaluation of a Machine Learning Approach Utilizing Wearable Data for Prediction of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.