About

SeptiMap is designed, developed and maintained by its author. It is a personal project: it commits no institution, no learned society and no hospital.

Reference resources in infectious diseases are organised by disease or by treatment. None answers directly the question “where does the literature locate the foci of an infectious agent, and how does it get there?”. SeptiMap approaches it through anatomy: for each agent, the described sites, their level of evidence, their references — and, conversely, for each organ, the documented agents.

SeptiMap is not a medical device. The tests and treatments it mentions come from the cited guidelines, for documentation only; they are not a prescription. SeptiMap replaces neither clinical judgement nor the recommendations of learned societies. No external review of the pages by an infectious-disease specialist has taken place to date: would you like to contribute? contact@septimap.fr

The author declares no conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry or with manufacturers of medical devices. Their consulting activity in medical technologies is mentioned here for transparency; it has given rise to no funding and no influence on the content of SeptiMap.

SeptiMap is funded from the personal funds of its author. It receives no institutional support, grant, scholarship or private funding. This statement will be updated if the situation changes.

An external review by an infectious diseases specialist is in progress; it is not finished. The medical content and the anatomical representation have been checked by automatic controls (resolution of bibliographic references, conformity of nomenclature to the LPSN, dimensional measurements of the 3D models); they have not yet been validated by an infectious diseases specialist, and no anatomy review has taken place. Reviewers will be named here, with their affiliation, the date and the scope of their review, once it is finished and with their consent.

Until the review is finished, no card is presented as reviewed: the “reviewed by” field of every organ tropism entry remains empty in the data, and the interface nowhere claims that a validation has occurred. This is the most important point on this page.

Two reviews are needed and do not substitute for each other: an infectious-diseases review (tropism, dosing, allergy alternatives, durations) and an anatomy review (position and scale of the structures in the 3D atlas).

The texts of this site were written with the help of an artificial-intelligence assistant, then reviewed by the author alone. No germ–organ association has been validated by a third party. The level of evidence is computed by a fixed rule from the type of source cited (meta-analysis or randomised trial: A; guideline or cohort: B; case series, expert opinion or review: C; no source: D) — it is not a GRADE assessment. Source verification covers the existence and concordance of DOIs (Crossref), not their content.

In the absence of human review, several properties are checked automatically. Data checks (tests, DOIs, nomenclature, numbers, sitemap) run inside the site’s build command: if one fails, the version is not published. Browser measurements (contrast, third-party requests, accessibility) run in the repository’s continuous integration, whose status is visible on every commit. They are not substitutes for expert review — a datum can be perfectly sourced and clinically wrong — but they are measured facts, not claims.

• Every cited DOI resolves on Crossref to a record whose title, journal and year match the reference.
• Every scientific name asserted is a “correct name” at the LPSN (DSMZ).
• No beta-lactam appears as an alternative for beta-lactam allergy.
• The pre-hospital dose for purpura fulminans is identical in the three files that mention it.
• A tropism entry without a source is graded D, never better.
• No interface text falls below a 4.5:1 contrast ratio, measured in a real browser.
• No network request goes to a third-party domain.

The full list of sources is on /en/sources. The selection method, the level-of-evidence scale and the limits of the corpus are on /en/methodology. Updates to the medical data are recorded on /en/updates.

Every card carries a “Report an error on this card” button, which opens a template pre-filled with the pathogen, the organ being viewed, the URL and the date of the data. Accepted corrections are dated and referenced in the change log. A processed report is not a review, and will never be presented as one.

Contact: contact@septimap.fr — to report an error, offer a review or a collaboration.