Search

Sepsis continues to be a major contributor to morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients globally, especially within intensive care and emergency departments, where rapid recognition is essential for improving survival through timely treatment. In recent years, machine learning approaches have gained attention for their ability to predict sepsis onset using routinely collected electronic health record data. This systematic review, conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines, synthesizes evidence from studies published between 2017 and 2025, focusing on model architectures, feature selection and engineering strategies, prediction time horizons, and validation methodologies. Searches across major biomedical and informatics databases identified 67 eligible studies. The included literature shows that logistic regression, ensemble tree-based algorithms, and deep learning models are most frequently applied for sepsis prediction tasks. However, the majority of studies rely on retrospective datasets with internal validation, while only a limited number incorporate prospective or real-world validation frameworks. Overall, although reported model performance is often strong in retrospective analyses, a consistent decline in accuracy is observed when models are evaluated in real clinical environments. These findings highlight that prospective validation and improved generalizability are still underdeveloped areas, underscoring the need for future research to emphasize real-time deployment and robust external validation before clinical integration.

Clinical trial recruitment is hindered by slow, costly, and labor-intensive processes, particularly due to the complexity of eligibility criteria often written in free text. This systematic review examines the use of large language models (LLMs) for matching clinical trial eligibility criteria to electronic health records (EHR). It evaluates zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuned LLM approaches, comparing their strengths, limitations, and deployment readiness in supporting patient-trial matching. Thirty-three studies published from 2017 to 2026 were included, with findings showing that zero-shot prompting is most adaptable for simple criteria, few-shot prompting offers consistent reasoning for ambiguous criteria, and fine-tuned models excel in task-specific performance but require labeled data and are less portable. The review concludes that no single approach is optimal for all trial screening tasks, and hybrid workflows combining various methods with human verification are most suitable for clinical use.