{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,18]],"date-time":"2026-09-18T05:04:20Z","timestamp":1789707860552,"version":"4.0.1"},"reference-count":30,"publisher":"Frontiers Media SA","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,18]],"date-time":"2026-09-18T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1789689600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["frontiersin.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Front. Med."],"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background\/objectives<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support systems have emerged as promising tools for improving early sepsis recognition in emergency departments. This study aimed to develop and evaluate interpretable machine learning models for identifying Sepsis-3-defined sepsis using routinely available admission-stage variables and to compare their performance with conventional biomarkers and the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS).<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This secondary analysis used a publicly available prospective cohort of 1,572 adult emergency department patients with suspected community-onset sepsis. The outcome was Sepsis-3-defined sepsis. Thirteen demographic, physiological, and laboratory admission variables were evaluated. Following a stratified 70:30 train\u2013test split, missing data were handled using multivariate imputation by chained equations, and feature selection was performed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression. Penalized logistic regression (LR), Explainable Boosting Machine (EBM), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) models were developed using five-fold cross-validation. Performance was evaluated by discrimination, classification, calibration, decision curve analysis, and explainability.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Among 1,572 adult patients, 560 met the Sepsis-3 criteria. In the internal holdout test set, AUROC values were 0.753 (LR), 0.763 (XGBoost), 0.767 (LightGBM), and 0.766 (EBM). Conventional biomarkers and SIRS showed lower discrimination (AUROC 0.599\u20130.693), whereas a biomarker-only logistic regression model achieved an AUROC of 0.710. No significant AUROC differences were observed among the machine learning models. LightGBM achieved the numerically highest AUROC and accuracy, whereas EBM achieved the highest sensitivity (0.845). Age, procalcitonin, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were the most influential predictors.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Interpretable machine learning models based on routinely available emergency department admission variables provided moderate discrimination, clinically relevant sensitivity, and transparent predictor effects for identifying Sepsis-3-defined sepsis. Compared with conventional biomarkers, SIRS, and a biomarker-only logistic regression model, the machine learning models generally showed higher discrimination, although the magnitude and statistical significance of these differences varied across comparators. External validation is required before clinical implementation.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3389\/fmed.2026.1929426","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,18]],"date-time":"2026-09-18T04:37:44Z","timestamp":1789706264000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Interpretable admission-stage machine learning for early Sepsis-3 identification in the emergency department"],"prefix":"10.3389","volume":"13","author":[{"given":"Fulden","family":"Canta\u015f T\u00fcrki\u015f","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Division of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Mu\u011fla S\u0131tk\u0131 Ko\u00e7man University","place":["Mu\u011fla, T\u00fcrkiye"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Bu\u011fra","family":"Varol","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Division of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Mu\u011fla S\u0131tk\u0131 Ko\u00e7man University","place":["Mu\u011fla, T\u00fcrkiye"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1965","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,18]]},"reference":[{"key":"B1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"200","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(19)32989-7","article-title":"Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the global burden of disease study","volume":"395","author":"Rudd","year":"2020","journal-title":"Lancet"},{"key":"B2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2235","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa1703058","article-title":"Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis","volume":"376","author":"Seymour","year":"2017","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"key":"B3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1181","DOI":"10.1007\/s00134-021-06506-y","article-title":"Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021","volume":"47","author":"Evans","year":"2021","journal-title":"Intensive Care Med"},{"key":"B4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"801","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2016.0287","article-title":"The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3)","volume":"315","author":"Singer","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Am Med Assoc"},{"key":"B5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"762","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2016.0288","article-title":"Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3)","volume":"315","author":"Seymour","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Am Med Assoc"},{"key":"B6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"R15","DOI":"10.1186\/cc8872","article-title":"Sepsis biomarkers: a review","volume":"14","author":"Pierrakos","year":"2010","journal-title":"Crit Care"},{"key":"B7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"426","DOI":"10.1016\/S1473-3099(12)70323-7","article-title":"Procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"13","author":"Wacker","year":"2013","journal-title":"Lancet Infect Dis"},{"key":"B8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0181704","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0181704","article-title":"Diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio, C-reactive protein, and lactate in patients with suspected bacterial sepsis","volume":"12","author":"Ljungstr\u00f6m","year":"2017","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"B9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"383","DOI":"10.1007\/s00134-019-05872-y","article-title":"Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy","volume":"46","author":"Fleuren","year":"2020","journal-title":"Intensive Care Med"},{"key":"B10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"334","DOI":"10.1016\/j.annemergmed.2018.11.036","article-title":"Development and evaluation of a machine learning model for the early identification of patients at risk for sepsis","volume":"73","author":"Delahanty","year":"2019","journal-title":"Ann Emerg Med"},{"key":"B11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1055","DOI":"10.3390\/jpm11111055","article-title":"Machine learning model to identify sepsis patients in the emergency department: algorithm development and validation","volume":"11","author":"Lin","year":"2021","journal-title":"J Pers Med"},{"key":"B12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0174708","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0174708","article-title":"Creating an automated trigger for sepsis clinical decision support at emergency department triage using machine learning","volume":"12","author":"Horng","year":"2017","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"B13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e49784","DOI":"10.2196\/49784","article-title":"Sepsis prediction at emergency department triage using natural language processing: retrospective cohort study","volume":"3","author":"Brann","year":"2024","journal-title":"JMIR AI"},{"key":"B14","first-page":"1721","article-title":"Intelligible models for healthcare: predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission","author":"Caruana","year":"2015"},{"key":"B15","first-page":"4765","article-title":"A unified approach to interpreting model predictions","volume":"30","author":"Lundberg","year":"2017","journal-title":"Adv Neural Inf Process Syst"},{"key":"B16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"128","DOI":"10.1097\/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2","article-title":"Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures","volume":"21","author":"Steyerberg","year":"2010","journal-title":"Epidemiology"},{"key":"B17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"230","DOI":"10.1186\/s12916-019-1466-7","article-title":"Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics","volume":"17","author":"Van Calster","year":"2019","journal-title":"BMC Med"},{"key":"B18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"565","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X06295361","article-title":"Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models","volume":"26","author":"Vickers","year":"2006","journal-title":"Med Decis Making"},{"key":"B19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e078378","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj-2023-078378","article-title":"Tripod\u2009+\u2009AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods","volume":"385","author":"Collins","year":"2024","journal-title":"Br Med J"},{"key":"B20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"248","DOI":"10.1186\/s12873-025-01402-w","article-title":"Accuracy is not enough: explainable boosting machine model and identification of candidate biomarkers for real-time sepsis risk assessment in the emergency department","volume":"25","author":"Yagin","year":"2025","journal-title":"BMC Emerg. Med"},{"key":"B21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"267","DOI":"10.1111\/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x","article-title":"Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso","volume":"58","author":"Tibshirani","year":"1996","journal-title":"J R Stat Soc Series B Methodol"},{"key":"B22","author":"Nori","year":""},{"key":"B23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"887","DOI":"10.1038\/s41598-025-85121-z","article-title":"Interpretable machine learning for predicting sepsis risk in emergency triage patients","volume":"15","author":"Liu","year":"2025","journal-title":"Sci Rep"},{"key":"B24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"547","DOI":"10.1097\/CCM.0000000000002936","article-title":"An interpretable machine learning model for accurate prediction of sepsis in the ICU","volume":"46","author":"Nemati","year":"2018","journal-title":"Crit Care Med"},{"key":"B25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e1091","DOI":"10.1097\/CCM.0000000000004550","article-title":"An explainable artificial intelligence predictor for early detection of sepsis","volume":"48","author":"Yang","year":"2020","journal-title":"Crit Care Med"},{"key":"B26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4348","DOI":"10.26355\/eurrev_202305_32439","article-title":"An interpretable machine learning model for real-time sepsis prediction based on basic physiological indicators","volume":"27","author":"Zhang","year":"2023","journal-title":"Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci"},{"key":"B27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"607952","DOI":"10.3389\/fmed.2021.607952","article-title":"Early prediction of sepsis in the ICU using machine learning: a systematic review","volume":"8","author":"Moor","year":"2021","journal-title":"Front Med"},{"key":"B28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1732164","DOI":"10.3389\/fmed.2026.1732164","article-title":"Progress in sepsis prediction models: from traditional scoring systems to multimodal intelligence and clinical translation","volume":"13","author":"Mou","year":"2026","journal-title":"Front Med"},{"key":"B29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"55","DOI":"10.7326\/M14-0697","article-title":"Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement","volume":"162","author":"Collins","year":"2015","journal-title":"Ann Intern Med"},{"key":"B30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0181704","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0181704","article-title":"Diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio, C-reactive protein, and lactate in patients with suspected bacterial sepsis","volume":"12","author":"Ljungstr\u00f6m","year":"2017","journal-title":"PLos One"}],"container-title":["Frontiers in Medicine"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fmed.2026.1929426\/full","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,18]],"date-time":"2026-09-18T04:37:49Z","timestamp":1789706269000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fmed.2026.1929426\/full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,18]]},"references-count":30,"alternative-id":["10.3389\/fmed.2026.1929426"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fmed.2026.1929426","relation":{},"ISSN":["2296-858X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2296-858X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,18]]},"article-number":"1929426"}}