MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410593748 · doi:10.1016/j.chstcc.2025.100179

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Serum Procalcitonin for Sepsis in Adult Patients in the Emergency Department

2025· review· en· W4410593748 on OpenAlexaff
Tanmoy Ghatak, Syed Ammar Sajjad, Arnavjyoti Das, Anup Kumar, Kurvatteppa Halemani, Bram Rochwerg

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Critical Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcalcitoninEmergency departmentSepsisMedicineMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineDiagnostic accuracySystematic reviewEmergency medicineInternal medicineMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Procalcitonin, a precursor hormone of calcitonin, represents a promising marker of bacterial infections. Research Question What is the accuracy of procalcitonin for the diagnosis of sepsis in adult patients in the emergency department (ED)? Study Design and Methods In this this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 5 databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Wiley, and the Cochrane database) from the inception of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock diagnostic criteria (January 1, 2016) through December 31, 2024. We included studies that assessed the accuracy of procalcitonin for sepsis in adult patients admitted in the ED. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis, evaluated individual study risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 criteria and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. Results We included 11 studies comprising 7,937 patients in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity of procalcitonin for sepsis in patients in the ED was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.60-0.64) and the pooled specificity was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.79-0.81); both were based on low certainty evidence. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 2.80 (95% CI, 2.20-3.57), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.32-0.55), and the pooled diagnostic OR was 6.83 (95% CI, 4.87-9.58). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve for procalcitonin was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.7281-0.8309). Conclusions Based on pooled analysis, procalcitonin was shown to have reasonable specificity but poor sensitivity for diagnosis of sepsis in patients in the ED with suspected infection. Given that the results are based on low certainty of evidence, further high-quality data in this population are needed. Clinical Trial Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; No.: CRD42024618786; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.024
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCHEST Critical CareSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207