MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413223111 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32080450

Septic Shock in Hematological Malignancies: Role of Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Outcomes

2025· review· en· W4413223111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Eugenia Alvaro, Santino Caserta, Fabio Stagno, Manlio Fazio, Sebastiano Gangemi, Sara Genovese, Alessandro Allegra

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeptic shockIntensive care medicineSepsisTriagePopulationArtificial intelligenceImmunologyMedical emergencyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Septic shock is a life-threatening complication of sepsis, particularly in patients with hematologic diseases who are highly susceptible to it due to profound immune dysregulation. Recent advances in artificial intelligence offer promising tools for improving septic shock diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment in this vulnerable population. In detail, these innovative models analyzing electronic health records, immune function, and real-time physiological data have demonstrated superior performance compared to traditional scoring systems such as Sequential Organ Failure Assessment. In patients with hematologic malignancies, machine learning approaches have shown strong accuracy in predicting the sepsis risk using biomarkers like lactate and red cell distribution width, the latter emerging as a powerful, cost-effective predictor of mortality. Deep reinforcement learning has enabled the dynamic modelling of immune responses, facilitating the design of personalized treatment regimens helpful in reducing simulated mortality. Additionally, algorithms driven by artificial intelligence can optimize fluid and vasopressor management, corticosteroid use, and infection risk. However, challenges related to data quality, transparency, and ethical concerns must be addressed to ensure their safe integration into clinical practice. Clinically, AI could enable earlier detection of septic shock, better patient triage, and tailored therapies, potentially lowering mortality and the number of ICU admissions. However, risks like misclassification and bias demand rigorous validation and oversight. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial to ensure that AI tools are implemented responsibly, with patient-centered outcomes and safety as primary goals. Overall, artificial intelligence holds transformative potential in managing septic shock among hematologic patients by enabling timely, individualized interventions, reducing overtreatment, and improving survival in this high-risk group of patients.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.337
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→