AI system
- 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.
- Language
-
English. No translation was used. [1]
- Original evidence
-
The original studies and their supporting materials are linked to the findings that they support. [1] [2] [3]
- Supported findings
-
COMPOSER deployment was associated with lower sepsis mortality and more frequent completion of the sepsis care bundle. [1]
- Evidence links
-
The deployment paper supplies clinical outcomes. The 2021 paper describes the model, and the correction restores an omitted table. [1] [2] [3]
- 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]
- Related entries
-
Not assessed
- 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
Sources
-
Peer-reviewed study Developer
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.
-
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.
-
Peer-reviewed study Developer
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.