4.6 Review

Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision Support in Sepsis

Journal

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.665464

Keywords

sepsis; artificial intelligence; machine learning; deep learning; early prediction

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81601670]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2042020kf0109]
  3. Peking Union Medical Foundation-Ruiyi Emergency Medical Research Fund [R2019028]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Artificial intelligence has great potential in clinical decision support for sepsis, with applications in prediction, diagnosis, prognosis assessment, and clinical management. However, the implementation and acceptance of this non-traditional method in clinical settings still face challenges.
Sepsis is one of the main causes of death in critically ill patients. Despite the continuous development of medical technology in recent years, its morbidity and mortality are still high. This is mainly related to the delay in starting treatment and non-adherence of clinical guidelines. Artificial intelligence (AI) is an evolving field in medicine, which has been used to develop a variety of innovative Clinical Decision Support Systems. It has shown great potential in predicting the clinical condition of patients and assisting in clinical decision-making. AI-derived algorithms can be applied to multiple stages of sepsis, such as early prediction, prognosis assessment, mortality prediction, and optimal management. This review describes the latest literature on AI for clinical decision support in sepsis, and outlines the application of AI in the prediction, diagnosis, subphenotyping, prognosis assessment, and clinical management of sepsis. In addition, we discussed the challenges of implementing and accepting this non-traditional methodology for clinical purposes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available