Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37638070›Full record

ArticleInfection and drug resistance2023

Predicting Antibiotic Resistance in ICUs Patients by Applying Machine Learning in Vietnam.

Viet Tran Quoc, Dung Nguyen Thi Ngoc, Trung Nguyen Hoang, Hoa Vu Thi, Minh Tong Duc, Thanh Do Pham Nguyet, Thanh Nguyen Van, Diep Ho Ngoc, Giang Vu Son, Thanh Bui Duc

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. An explainable machine learning approach to predicting carbapenem resistance inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Veterinary sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

10 authors.

Viet Tran QuocIntensive Care Unit, Military Hospital 175, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.ORCID 0009-0002-0535-6762
Dung Nguyen Thi NgocDepartment of Military Science and Training, Military Hospital 175, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.ORCID 0000-0001-8122-1515
Trung Nguyen HoangDepartment of Military Hygiene, Vietnam Military Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam.ORCID 0000-0003-3527-7037
Hoa Vu ThiDepartment of Military Hygiene, Vietnam Military Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam.ORCID 0009-0002-4863-0653
Minh Tong DucDepartment of Military Hygiene, Vietnam Military Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam.ORCID 0000-0001-5449-0832
Thanh Do Pham NguyetDepartment of Military Science and Training, Military Hospital 175, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.ORCID 0009-0000-5931-0079
Thanh Nguyen VanDepartment of General Planning, Military Hospital 175, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.ORCID 0009-0006-9980-4210
Diep Ho NgocDepartment of Military Science and Training, Military Hospital 175, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.ORCID 0009-0001-5020-5683
Giang Vu SonDepartment of Personnel, Military Hospital 175, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.ORCID 0009-0001-7892-4022
Thanh Bui DucInstitute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Military hospital 175, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.ORCID 0009-0001-4324-6460

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are used extensively in HICs to detect and control antibiotic resistance (AMR) in laboratories and clinical institutions. ML is designed to predict outcome variables using an algorithm to enable "machines" to learn the "rules" from the data. ML is increasingly being applied in intensive care units to identify AMR and to assist empiric antibiotic therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of ML models for predicting AMR bacteria and resistance to antibiotics in two Vietnamese hospitals. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional study combined with retrospective was conducted from 1st January 2020 to 30th June 2022. Five models were developed to predict antibiotic resistance of bacterial infections of ICU patients. Two datasets were prepared to predict AMR bacteria and antibiotics with ML models. The performance of the prediction models was evaluated by various indicators (sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, F1-score, PRC, AuROC, and NormMCC) to determine the optimal time point for data selection. Python version 3.8 was used for statistical analyses. Results: The accuracy, F1-score, AuROC, and normMMC of LightGBM, XGBoost, and Random Forest models were higher than those of other models in both datasets. In both datasets 1 and 2, accuracy, F1-score, AuROC and normMCC of the XGBoost model were the highest among five models (from 0.890 to 1.000). Only Random Forest models had specificity scores higher than 0.850. High scores of sensitivity, accuracy, precision, F1-score, and normMCC indicated that the models were making accurate predictions for datasets 1 and 2. Conclusion: XGBoost, LightGBM, and Random Forest were the best-performed machine learning models to predict antibiotic resistance of bacterial infections of ICUs patients using the patients' EMRs.

Indexed as

antibiotic resistanceLightGBMmachine learningrandom forestXGBoost

Identifiers

PMID37638070
PMCPMC10460201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.