Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34484472›Full record

ArticleThe EPMA journal2021

Diagnosing hospital bacteraemia in the framework of predictive, preventive and personalised medicine using electronic health records and machine learning classifiers.

Oscar Garnica, Diego Gómez, Víctor Ramos, J Ignacio Hidalgo, José M Ruiz-Giardín

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The EPMA journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Oscar GarnicaDepartamento de Arquitectura de Computadores, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5064-2587
Diego GómezUniversidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Víctor RamosUniversidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
J Ignacio HidalgoDepartamento de Arquitectura de Computadores, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3046-6368
José M Ruiz-GiardínDepartamento de Medicina Interna, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9459-7386
Universidad Complutense de Madrid · ESHospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The bacteraemia prediction is relevant because sepsis is one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality. Bacteraemia prognosis primarily depends on a rapid diagnosis. The bacteraemia prediction would shorten up to 6 days the diagnosis, and, in conjunction with individual patient variables, should be considered to start the early administration of personalised antibiotic treatment and medical services, the election of specific diagnostic techniques and the determination of additional treatments, such as surgery, that would prevent subsequent complications. Machine learning techniques could help physicians make these informed decisions by predicting bacteraemia using the data already available in electronic hospital records. Objective: This study presents the application of machine learning techniques to these records to predict the blood culture's outcome, which would reduce the lag in starting a personalised antibiotic treatment and the medical costs associated with erroneous treatments due to conservative assumptions about blood culture outcomes. Methods: Six supervised classifiers were created using three machine learning techniques, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest and K-Nearest Neighbours, on the electronic health records of hospital patients. The best approach to handle missing data was chosen and, for each machine learning technique, two classification models were created: the first uses the features known at the time of blood extraction, whereas the second uses four extra features revealed during the blood culture. Results: The six classifiers were trained and tested using a dataset of 4357 patients with 117 features per patient. The models obtain predictions that, for the best case, are up to a state-of-the-art accuracy of 85.9%, a sensitivity of 87.4% and an AUC of 0.93. Conclusions: Our results provide cutting-edge metrics of interest in predictive medical models with values that exceed the medical practice threshold and previous results in the literature using classical modelling techniques in specific types of bacteraemia. Additionally, the consistency of results is reasserted because the three classifiers' importance ranking shows similar features that coincide with those that physicians use in their manual heuristics. Therefore, the efficacy of these machine learning techniques confirms their viability to assist in the aims of predictive and personalised medicine once the disease presents bacteraemia-compatible symptoms and to assist in improving the healthcare economy.

Indexed as

Bacteraemia diagnosisBacteraemia predictionBlood culture’s outcome predictionCOVID-19Healthcare economyHealth policyIndividualised electronic patient record analysisK-Nearest neighboursMachine learningModellingPersonalised antibiotic treatmentPredictivePreventive and personalised medicine (PPPM/3PM)Random forestSupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID34484472
PMCPMC8405861
OpenAlexW3196663128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.