Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37817106›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2023

Machine learning model for the prediction of gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infection based on routine laboratory parameters.

Fan Zhang, Hao Wang, Liyu Liu, Teng Su, Bing Ji

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Cultryx: Precision Diagnostic Stewardship for Blood Cultures Using Machine Learning.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Deep Learning for the Early Diagnosis of Candidemia.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Fan Zhang *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China.
Hao Wang *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China.
Liyu LiuSchool of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, 250061, Shandong, China.
Teng SuSchool of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, 250061, Shandong, China.
Bing JiSchool of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, 250061, Shandong, China. b.ji@sdu.edu.cn.

Funding

Clinical Research Center of Shandong University 2020SDUCRCC013National Natural Science Foundation of China 62173212National Natural Science Foundation of China 81873927Taishan Scholars Program of Shandong Province tsqn202103165
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBacterial bloodstream infection is responsible for the majority of cases of sepsis and septic shock. Early recognition of the causative pathogen is pivotal for administration of adequate empiric antibiotic therapy and for the survival of the patients. In this study, we developed a feasible machine learning (ML) model to predict gram-positive and gram-negative bacteremia based on routine laboratory parameters.

methodsData for 2118 patients with bacteremia were obtained from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care dataset. Patients were randomly split into the training set and test set by stratified sampling, and 374 routine laboratory blood test variables were retrieved. Variables with missing values in more than 40% of the patients were excluded. Pearson correlation test was employed to eliminate redundant features. Five ML algorithms were used to build the model based on the selected features. Additionally, 132 patients with bacteremia who were treated at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University were included in an independent test cohort to evaluate the model.

resultsAfter feature selection, 32 variables remained. All the five ML algorithms performed well in terms of discriminating between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteremia, but the performance of convolutional neural network (CNN) and random forest (RF) were better than other three algorithms. Consider of the interpretability of models, RF was chosen for further test (ROC-AUC = 0.768; 95%CI = 0.715-0.798, with a sensitivity of 75.20% and a specificity of 63.79%). To expand the application of the model, a decision tree (DT) was built utilizing the major variables, and it achieved an AUC of 0.679 (95%CI = 0.632-0.723), a sensitivity of 66%, and a specificity of 67.82% in the test cohort. When tested in the Qilu Hospital cohort, the ROC-AUC of the RF and DT models were 0.666 (95%CI = 0.579-0.746) and 0.615 (95%CI = 0.526-0.698), respectively. Finally, a software was developed to make the RF- and DT-based prediction models easily accessible.

conclusionThe present ML-based models could effectively discriminate between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteremia based on routine laboratory blood test results. This simple model would be beneficial in terms of guiding timely antibiotic selection and administration in critically ill patients with bacteremia before their pathogen test results are available.

Indexed as

BacteremiaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsSepsisShock, SepticAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteremiaGram-negativeGram-positiveMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37817106
PMCPMC10566101

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.