Epic Sepsis Model vs OpenEvidence
A hospital running Epic gets the Epic Sepsis Model as a risk score for adult inpatients and ED patients. A 2026 JAMA Network Open prospective validation across four US health systems put version 2 at an encounter-level AUROC of 0.82 to 0.92. Version 2 can be retrained for a single hospital. Positive predictive value was 0.13 to 0.26, and the authors reported high alert burden and institutional variability.
OpenEvidence is a cited-answer tool for individual physicians, free to those with a verified NPI, and Sacra and other secondary write-ups say its revenue is mostly pharmaceutical advertising. Its security page states HIPAA compliance with a BAA and SOC 2 Type II for the Security category. One r/emergencymedicine post from September 2025 calls an answer about chest x-ray and pulmonary embolism an inaccuracy. A family physician between patients wants the reference tool, and a hospital running Epic wants the sepsis alert, so the two are bought for different jobs by different people.
Decision support · Reviewed November 2, 2026
Epic Sepsis Model
by Epic Systems
Sepsis risk score calculated every 15 minutes inside the Epic EHR, with alert thresholds set by each hospital.
OpenEvidence
by OpenEvidence · founded 2022
Free physician-only literature-grounded Q&A, 1M consults/day.
When to pick each one
Epic Sepsis Model
- Native to Epic for inpatients and ED
- Version 2 can be localized per hospital
OpenEvidence
- Free for NPI-verified physicians
- BAA and SOC 2 Type II for Security
- Cited answers from literature and guidelines
Score
Each row shows points earned of points available under the published rubric.
Epic Sepsis Model
41of 100
OpenEvidence
52of 100
| Dimension | Epic Sepsis Model | OpenEvidence | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA clearance | 0 / 12 | 0 / 12 | 0 |
| HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA | 0 / 10 | 0 / 10 | 0 |
| EHR integrations (count) | 0 / 5.6 | 0 / 5.6 | 0 |
| Top-3 EHR coverage (Epic / Oracle / Athena) | 0 / 4.8 | 0 / 4.8 | 0 |
| Bidirectional write-back | 0 / 1.2 | 0 / 1.2 | 0 |
| Peer-reviewed papers | 21 / 21 | 21 / 21 | 0 |
| RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review | 9 / 9 | 4.5 / 9 | +4.5 |
| Funding & adoption signal | 3 / 12 | 12 / 12 | -9 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.3 / 2.5 | 2.5 / 2.5 | -1.2 |
| Years in market | 0 / 6 | 4.2 / 6 | -4.2 |
Scroll horizontally to see every column.
Pricing
Epic Sepsis Model
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise | n/a | n/a | No public price. Delivered within Epic licensing. |
OpenEvidence
| Tier | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plan | n/a | n/a | Free for NPI-verified physicians (ad-funded). |
Evidence
Epic Sepsis Model
FDA decisions
No FDA decision cited in our research as of November 2, 2026.
Peer-reviewed
5 PubMed records name Epic Sepsis Model.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Externally Validated Epic Clinical Decision Support Tools. (opens in new tab)
- Evaluation of Sepsis Prediction Models before Onset of Treatment. (opens in new tab)
- Multicenter Prospective Validation of an Updated Proprietary Sepsis Prediction Model. (opens in new tab)
OpenEvidence
FDA decisions
No FDA decision cited in our research as of October 20, 2026.
Peer-reviewed
5 PubMed records name OpenEvidence.
- Performance of Large Language Models on Diagnostic Radiology Board-Style Questions: A Comparative Evaluation of GPT-4o, Perplexity AI, and OpenEvidence. (opens in new tab)
- OpenEvidence. (opens in new tab)
- Concordance of ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and OpenEvidence with the 2024 AAOS guidelines on acute isolated meniscal pathology. (opens in new tab)
Community
20 posts sourced: 3 positive, 14 neutral, 3 negative.
Compliance and integrations
Documented from each vendor’s own pages.
| Spec | Epic Sepsis Model | OpenEvidence |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | ||
| HIPAA | ||
| SOC 2 Type II | ||
| EHR integrations | Not specified | Not specified |
| Founded | n/a | 2022 |
| HQ | US | US |
Scroll horizontally to see both columns.
Common questions
Open the full decision support comparison
Differential diagnosis, treatment guidance, drug interactions, evidence-grounded Q&A. The CDS landscape ranges from the UpToDate gold standard to physician-only OpenEvidence. We compared what clinicians actually use.