ReviewFuture microbiology2024
Prediction of candidemia with machine learning techniques: state of the art.
Review in Future microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Invasive Candidiasis in Critically Ill Patients: Fundamental Concepts and Future Directions.Chest · 2026Review
- Deep Learning for the Early Diagnosis of Candidemia.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this narrative review, we discuss studies assessing the use of machine learning (ML) models for the early diagnosis of candidemia, focusing on employed models and the related implications. There are currently few studies evaluating ML techniques for the early diagnosis of candidemia as a prediction task based on clinical and laboratory features. The use of ML tools holds promise to provide highly accurate and real-time support to clinicians for relevant therapeutic decisions at the bedside of patients with suspected candidemia. However, further research is needed in terms of sample size, data quality, recognition of biases and interpretation of model outputs by clinicians to better understand if and how these techniques could be safely adopted in daily clinical practice.
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.