ArticleHeliyon2024
Identifying necrotizing soft tissue infection using infectious fluid analysis and clinical parameters based on machine learning algorithms.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- CT of Soft Tissue Infections: Current and Future Perspectives from Diagnosis to Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic strategies in necrotizing soft tissue infections: from clinical scores to multi-omics and machine learning.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
- Indocyanine green fluorescence-guided surgery in acute settings: state-of-the art.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Determining the presence of necrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI) poses a significant hurdle. As of late, there has been a notable increase in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning techniques in identifying diseases, a shift that can be attributed to their exceptional efficiency, unbiased nature, and high precision. Methods: Information was gathered from a cohort of 13 patients suffering from NSTI, alongside 12 patients with cellulitis. The construction of NSTI diagnostic machine learning models utilized four different algorithms, specifically random forest, k-nearest neighbors (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), and logistic regression. These models were constructed based on 28 distinctive attributes identified through statistical examination. Following this, the diagnostic efficiency of each algorithms was evaluated. A novel random forest model, streamlined for clinical use, was later developed by focusing on 6 attributes that had the most pronounced influence on the accuracy of our initial random forest model. Results: The following data was noted regarding the sensitivity and specificity of the four NSTI diagnostic models:logistic regression displayed 78.2 % and 83.7 %, KNN presented 79.1 % and 87.1 %, SVM showed 83.5 % and 86.3 %, and random forest exhibited 89.6 % and 92.9 %, respectively. In comparison, lactate levels in fluid demonstrated 100 % sensitivity and 76.9 % specificity at an optimal cut-off point of 69.6 mg/dL. Among all four machine learning models, random forest outperformed the others and also showed better results than fluid lactate. A newly constructed random forest model, created using 6 of the 13 identified features, displayed promising results in diagnosing NSTI, having a sensitivity and specificity of 90.2 % and 92.2 %, respectively. Conclusions: Developing a diagnostic model for NSTI employing the random forest algorithm has resulted in a diagnostic technique that is more efficient, cost-effective, and expedient. This approach could provide healthcare practitioners with the tools to identify and manage NSTI with greater efficacy.
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.