Sepsis is a leading cause of ICU mortality, and early detection is critical for improving patient outcomes. However, existing machine learning models often rely on hourly aggregated data, limiting their ability to capture rapid physiological changes, and frequently lack interpretability, reducing clinical trust and usability. This paper proposes a conceptual framework that integrates Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCNs) with an attention mechanism to analyze high-frequency, minute-level vital sign data for early sepsis prediction. The architecture includes a data input layer, a TCN-based feature extractor with causal dilated convolutions and residual connections, an attention module for identifying clinically relevant time points and variables, and a prediction head that estimates the risk of sepsis within a 6-hour horizon. The proposed approach enables efficient parallel processing, improved temporal sensitivity, and enhanced interpretability compared to recurrent models. While offering advantages in real-time prediction and explainability, challenges remain in handling missing data, ensuring generalizability across ICUs, and minimizing false alarms for clinical deployment.
Sepsis remains a major cause of mortality in intensive care units worldwide, with an estimated 49 million cases and over 11 million deaths annually, highlighting the need for earlier detection to improve outcomes. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on machine learning models for early sepsis prediction in adult ICU patients from 2017 to 2021, focusing on prediction horizons, data modalities, and validation approaches. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and arXiv identified studies meeting criteria for ICU-based sepsis prediction with at least a 4-hour forecast window, following PRISMA guidelines. Of 1,478 records screened, 35 studies were included, with prediction horizons ranging from 4 to 24 hours and most relying on hourly vital sign data and internal validation. Reported performance varied widely depending on horizon length, data sampling, and validation rigor, with external validation generally producing lower but more realistic results. Overall, while machine learning models show promising predictive ability, limitations in generalizability and standardization remain, emphasizing the need for stronger validation frameworks and reporting practices to support clinical translation.
Clinical Intelligence Research Press