Search

Over the past five years, sepsis prediction models have reported strong retrospective performance, often exceeding AUROC 0.85–0.90 by leveraging vital signs, laboratory data, and machine learning to predict sepsis earlier than clinical recognition. However, despite these results, bedside adoption remains minimal, and external or prospective validations frequently show substantial performance decline, with clinicians still relying on traditional criteria such as qSOFA and SIRS. This position paper argues that AUROC is an insufficient and potentially misleading metric for clinical deployment, as it reflects retrospective rank discrimination rather than real-world utility, calibration, or actionable impact. High AUROC scores often conceal poor threshold selection, excessive alert burden, and clinically unacceptable alarm fatigue, while retrospective evaluations create an overly optimistic view that fails in real-time settings. We propose shifting evaluation toward clinically meaningful metrics such as net benefit, alert burden per patient-day, and number needed to alert at clinician-defined thresholds, alongside earlier incorporation of workflow requirements. Ultimately, the continued dominance of AUROC-centric evaluation represents a systemic mismatch between model development and clinical reality, limiting sepsis prediction tools from achieving meaningful impact at the bedside.