ArticleScientific reports2023
Development of an artificial intelligence bacteremia prediction model and evaluation of its impact on physician predictions focusing on uncertainty.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Models for Predicting Bloodstream Infections in Large Cohorts: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Utility of shaking chills as a diagnostic sign for bacteremia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting positive blood cultures using vital signs in ICU patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a bacteremia prediction score for adult emergency department patients using hybrid machine learning and regression.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Intuitive Risk Equation for Post-Transplant Bloodstream Infection Prediction: A Symbolic Regression Approach.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Implementation and Updating of Clinical Prediction Models: A Systematic Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Using Large Language Models to Extract Core Injury Information From Emergency Department Notes.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Leveraging explainable artificial intelligence for early prediction of bloodstream infections using historical electronic health records.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prediction of bacteremia is a clinically important but challenging task. An artificial intelligence (AI) model has the potential to facilitate early bacteremia prediction, aiding emergency department (ED) physicians in making timely decisions and reducing unnecessary medical costs. In this study, we developed and externally validated a Bayesian neural network-based AI bacteremia prediction model (AI-BPM). We also evaluated its impact on physician predictive performance considering both AI and physician uncertainties using historical patient data. A retrospective cohort of 15,362 adult patients with blood cultures performed in the ED was used to develop the AI-BPM. The AI-BPM used structured and unstructured text data acquired during the early stage of ED visit, and provided both the point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) of its predictions. High AI-BPM uncertainty was defined as when the predetermined bacteremia risk threshold (5%) was included in the 95% CI of the AI-BPM prediction, and low AI-BPM uncertainty was when it was not included. In the temporal validation dataset (N = 8,188), the AI-BPM achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.754 (95% CI 0.737-0.771), sensitivity of 0.917 (95% CI 0.897-0.934), and specificity of 0.340 (95% CI 0.330-0.351). In the external validation dataset (N = 7,029), the AI-BPM's AUC was 0.738 (95% CI 0.722-0.755), sensitivity was 0.927 (95% CI 0.909-0.942), and specificity was 0.319 (95% CI 0.307-0.330). The AUC of the post-AI physicians predictions (0.703, 95% CI 0.654-0.753) was significantly improved compared with that of the pre-AI predictions (0.639, 95% CI 0.585-0.693; p-value < 0.001) in the sampled dataset (N = 1,000). The AI-BPM especially improved the predictive performance of physicians in cases with high physician uncertainty (low subjective confidence) and low AI-BPM uncertainty. Our results suggest that the uncertainty of both the AI model and physicians should be considered for successful AI model implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.