OpenAlex · Aktualisierung stündlich · Letzte Aktualisierung: 12.05.2026, 08:02

Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.

The role of artificial intelligence in sepsis in the Emergency Department: a narrative review

2025·9 Zitationen·Annals of Translational MedicineOpen Access
Volltext beim Verlag öffnen

9

Zitationen

8

Autoren

2025

Jahr

Abstract

Background and Objective: Early recognition and treatment of sepsis in the emergency department (ED) is important. Traditional predictive analytics and clinical decision rules lack accuracy in identifying patients with sepsis. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly prevalent in healthcare and offers application potential in the care of patients with sepsis. This review examines the evidence of AI in diagnosing, managing and prognosticating sepsis in the ED. Methods: We performed literature search in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Scopus databases for studies published between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2024 that evaluated the use of AI in adult patients with sepsis in ED, using the following search terms: ("artificial intelligence" OR "machine learning" OR "neural networks, computer" OR "deep learning" OR "natural language processing"), AND ("sepsis" OR "septic shock", AND "emergency services" OR "emergency department"). Independent searches were conducted in duplicate with discrepancies adjudicated by a third member. Key Content and Findings: Incorporating multiple variables such as vital signs, free text input, laboratory tests and electrocardiogram was possible with AI compared to traditional models leading to improvement in diagnostic performance. Machine learning (ML) models outperformed traditional scoring tools in both diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis. ML models were able to analyze trends over time and showed utility in predicting mortality, severe sepsis and septic shock. Additionally, real-time ML-assisted alert systems are effective in improving time-to-antibiotic administration and ML algorithms can differentiate sepsis patients into distinct phenotypes to tailor management (especially fluid therapy and critical care interventions), potentially improving outcomes. Existing AI tools for sepsis currently lack generalizability and user acceptance. This is risk of automation bias with loss of clinicians' skills if over-reliance develops. Conclusions: Overall, AI holds great promise in revolutionizing management of patients with sepsis in the ED as a clinical support tool. However, its application is currently still constrained by inherent limitations. Balanced integration of AI technology with clinician input is essential to harness its full potential and ensure optimal patient outcomes.

Ähnliche Arbeiten