COMPOSER sepsis alerts are linked to lower mortality

At UC San Diego, mortality after COMPOSER deployment was 9.49%, versus a modeled 11.39% without it.

AI system

System

COMPOSER with a nurse-facing alert in Epic. [1] [3]

Model

COMPOSER, a feedforward neural network with conformal prediction. [1] [3]

Release

The deployment report does not give a release or checkpoint identifier. [1] [3]

Provider

University of California San Diego. [1] [3]

Role

COMPOSER estimated sepsis risk over the next four hours and reported the measurements that contributed to each alert. [1] [3]

Configuration

The system assessed risk over the next four hours and issued nurse alerts in Epic. Repeat alerts were suppressed for eight or twelve hours after a response. [1]

Inputs and outputs

COMPOSER analyzed clinical measurements and their timing to estimate sepsis risk and identify the main contributing factors. [1] [3]

Autonomy

Nurses acknowledged the alert and could notify a physician. Clinicians decided on tests and treatment. [1] [3]

Workflow

Continuous analysis of electronic patient data and alerts delivered to nursing staff. Nurse review, physician assessment, and treatment at UC San Diego Medical Center and Jacobs Medical Center.

Human oversight

Nurses reviewed an alert and chose whether to notify a physician, note that care was already underway, or record that infection was unlikely. Physicians decided on treatment. [1]

Relation to AI

COMPOSER analyzed patient data and alerted nurses to possible sepsis. Nurses reviewed patients with physicians, who selected treatment. The outcome concerns AI-assisted clinical care.

AI contribution

COMPOSER analyzed patient data and alerted nurses to possible sepsis. Nurses reviewed patients with physicians, who selected treatment. The outcome concerns AI-assisted clinical care.

Benefits

Outcome identifiers

AIBD-0579-outcome-01 [1]

Benefit

Sepsis mortality after deployment was lower than the study’s modeled estimate for care without COMPOSER. [1]

Category

Improved Physical Health

Status

Observed outcomes compared with a modeled counterfactual. [1]

Beneficiary groups

People.

Beneficiaries

Adults with sepsis in the Hillcrest and La Jolla emergency departments. [1]

Reach

The study analyzed 6,217 sepsis encounters. Its estimate of 22 additional survivors comes from the counterfactual model. [1]

Distribution and access

The mortality difference was statistically significant at Hillcrest but not at La Jolla. The two hospitals served different patient populations. [1]

Duration

The post-deployment evaluation ran from 7 December 2022 through 30 April 2023. Mortality was measured during hospitalization. [1]

Expected?

Yes

Costs and harms

Nurses received about 235 alerts per month across both sites. Unnecessary treatment among patients without sepsis, and its costs or harms, were not evaluated. [1]

Measurement

Studies

UCSD IRB 805726 [1]

Study design

A prospective, nonrandomized before-and-after study. A Bayesian time-series model estimated what would have happened without deployment. [1]

Measurement

Researchers used electronic records to identify Sepsis-3 cases, inpatient deaths, organ dysfunction, and completion of the sepsis care bundle. [1]

Setting and sample

The analysis included 6,217 eligible sepsis encounters: 5,065 before deployment and 1,152 afterward. [1]

Measures

In-hospital mortality, completion of the sepsis care bundle, and change in organ dysfunction over 72 hours. [1]

Comparison

A modeled post-deployment counterfactual based on the historical period, with adjustment for measured differences. [1]

Results

Mortality was 9.49%, versus 11.39% in the modeled comparison: a difference of 1.9 percentage points (95% CI, 0.3–3.5). [1]

Additional value from AI

The estimate concerns COMPOSER, nurse alerts, preparation, and subsequent care together. It does not isolate the prediction model from those changes. [1]

Limitations

There was no randomized or concurrent untreated group. Unmeasured changes in care could affect the comparison. Results covered five months at one health system. [1]

Denominators

The historical period ran from 1 January 2021 to 6 December 2022. Deployment began on 7 December 2022. [1]

Materials for replication

The supplement describes implementation and statistical methods. De-identified data and analysis code are available only through the authors and institutional approval. [1]

Money

Kind of value

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

Amount

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

Currency and prices

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

Period and unit

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

Realization

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

Recipients and payers

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

Gross or net

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

Included costs

The paper reports about six months of preparation, staff training, cloud operation, and monitoring, but no monetary cost or financial return. [1]

Comparison

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

Method

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

Return and payback

The reviewed sources do not report a monetary valuation or financial return. [1]

People and places

Participants

UC San Diego researchers developed COMPOSER. Nurses and physicians at UC San Diego Health acted on its alerts. [1]

Jurisdictions

UC San Diego’s Hillcrest and La Jolla hospitals, California, United States. [1]

Ownership and control

The reviewed clinical sources identify the organizations involved, but do not establish their complete ownership or control arrangements. [1]

Dependencies

COMPOSER ran on AWS with electronic-record feeds and an Epic nurse alert. The deployment also required clinical staffing and monitoring of data delivery. [1]

Cross-border connections

The reviewed sources do not document international transfers of patient data or quantify cross-border financial flows. [1]

Geopolitical implications

Not assessed

Follow-up

Conditions for replication

The deployment required reliable electronic records, nurse training, physician response, and continuing checks of model performance and data delivery. [1]

Replication attempts

The reviewed sources do not report an independent repetition of this clinical result. [1]

Later findings

The June 2024 correction restored Table 3 and its citation. It did not announce a new trial or change the reported mortality estimate. [2]

Availability

The paper describes clinical use at UC San Diego and a startup formed by several authors. It does not establish general public access to the deployed system. [1]

Institutional decision

UC San Diego Health introduced a nurse alert for possible sepsis. [1]

Grounds

The project received IRB approval 805726 and ACQUIRE approval 609, with a waiver of informed consent. [1]

Action and result

The team trained staff, deployed the alerts, and monitored the system during clinical use. [1]

Success criterion

The evaluation examined mortality, sepsis treatment, and organ dysfunction rather than a single formal pass-or-fail threshold. [1]

Evidence

Source numbers

3 retained sources.

Citations

Original citations and the passages that support each finding. [1] [2] [3]

Language

English. No translation was used. [1]

Source relationships

Developer [1] [2]

Original evidence

The original studies and their supporting materials are linked to the findings that they support. [1] [2] [3]

Access and versions

Access and version details are listed for each reviewed source. [1] [2] [3]

Supported findings

COMPOSER deployment was associated with lower sepsis mortality and more frequent completion of the sepsis care bundle. [1]

Evidence strength

An original, peer-reviewed study by the developers and deploying health system, using a historical counterfactual. [1]

Missing evidence

The study did not measure harms from false-positive alerts in patients without sepsis, financial returns, or an independently replicated mortality effect. [1]

Grades

Assessed benefits

The benefit described here, for the beneficiary groups shown.

Depth

Depth 5 for the reported survival benefit.

Reasons

Depth 5 for the reported survival benefit.

Observed or intended

The depth describes the reported result. Evidence strength is assessed separately.

Rubric

AIBD’s five-level depth rubric, reviewed on 25 October 2026.

Assessor and date

AIBD, 25 October 2026.

Alternative assessments

The grade describes the reported benefit; it does not convert the historical comparison into a causal trial.

Fill

A peer-reviewed study by the developers and deploying health system. The outline is retained.

Entry details

Kind

A prospective comparison before and after clinical deployment. [1]

Field

Healthcare - sepsis. Electronic-health-record early warning system.

Purpose

Identify emerging sepsis so that clinical teams can assess and treat patients sooner.

Dates

Deployment began on 7 December 2022. Follow-up ended on 30 April 2023. [1]

Stage

Routine use at two UC San Diego emergency departments from 7 December 2022. [1]

Version

SHA-256: d1042baa617a…

References

Other identifiers

UCSD IRB 805726 and ACQUIRE project 609. [1]

Category mappings

Not assessed

Brief

Not assessed

Revisions

3 revisions. Latest: 25 October 2026. [1] [2]

Sources

  1. Peer-reviewed study Developer

    Boussina A, Shashikumar SP, Malhotra A, et al. (2024). npj Digital Medicine 7:14. doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00986-6. Evaluation by COMPOSER's developers and deploying health system. Results; corrected Table 3; Supplementary Notes 2–8 and hospital-specific analyses.

    Clinical comparison, counts, oversight, implementation, and study limitations. Results; corrected Table 3; Methods; Data and Code availability; Competing interests.

    Original evaluation by the developers and deploying health system.

    Supplement to the same evaluation. Implementation, alerts, monitoring, causal model, and hospital-specific results. Supplementary Notes 2–8.

    Supplement to the same evaluation.

  2. Peer-reviewed study Developer

    Boussina A, Shashikumar SP, Malhotra A, et al. (2024). Author Correction: Impact of a deep learning sepsis prediction model on quality of care and survival. npj Digital Medicine 7:153. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01149-x.

    Restores Table 3 and its missing citation. Entire correction notice.

    Correction to the same paper, not replication.

  3. Peer-reviewed study Developer

    Supreeth P. Shashikumar et al., “Artificial Intelligence Sepsis Prediction Algorithm Learns to Say ‘I Don’t Know,’” npj Digital Medicine 4 (2021): 134, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00504-6.

    Model construction and ability to abstain on unfamiliar inputs. Methods: conformal prediction and neural model.

    Earlier development study, not independent verification of the clinical effect.