Application of AI in Sepsis: Citation Network Analysis and Evidence Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has garnered considerable attention in the context of sepsis research, particularly in personalized diagnosis and treatment. Conducting a bibliometric analysis of existing publications can offer a broad overview of the field and identify current research trends and future research directions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to leverage bibliometric data to provide a comprehensive overview of the application of AI in sepsis. METHODS: We conducted a search in the Web of Science Core Collection database to identify relevant articles published in English until August 31, 2023. A predefined search strategy was used, evaluating titles, abstracts, and full texts as needed. We used the Bibliometrix and VOSviewer tools to visualize networks showcasing the co-occurrence of authors, research institutions, countries, citations, and keywords. RESULTS: A total of 259 relevant articles published between 2014 and 2023 (until August) were identified. Over the past decade, the annual publication count has consistently risen. Leading journals in this domain include Critical Care Medicine (17/259, 6.6%), Frontiers in Medicine (17/259, 6.6%), and Scientific Reports (11/259, 4.2%). The United States (103/259, 39.8%), China (83/259, 32%), United Kingdom (14/259, 5.4%), and Taiwan (12/259, 4.6%) emerged as the most prolific countries in terms of publications. Notable institutions in this field include the University of California System, Emory University, and Harvard University. The key researchers working in this area include Ritankar Das, Chris Barton, and Rishikesan Kamaleswaran. Although the initial period witnessed a relatively low number of articles focused on AI applications for sepsis, there has been a significant surge in research within this area in recent years (2014-2023). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive analysis provides valuable insights into AI-related research conducted in the field of sepsis, aiding health care policy makers and researchers in understanding the potential of AI and formulating effective research plans. Such analysis serves as a valuable resource for determining the advantages, sustainability, scope, and potential impact of AI models in sepsis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.246 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.137 | 0.106 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".