Observational studyAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2024
Retrospective validation study of a machine learning-based software for empirical and organism-targeted antibiotic therapy selection.
Observational study in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06174519 (Evaluation of the Artificial Intelligence-based Prescription Support Software iAST® for the Choice of Empirical and Semi-targeted Antibiotic Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Evaluation of the Artificial Intelligence-based Prescription Support Software iAST® for the Choice of Empirical and Semi-targeted Antibiotic Treatment
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reported Dosing-Related Medication Errors Involving Systemic Antibiotics in the Brazilian Pharmacovigilance Database (2018-2025): Distribution Across the WHO AWaRe Classification.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Infectious Disease Care: Selected Applications in Tuberculosis, Sepsis, and Antimicrobial Stewardship.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- eBIMIC: development of a web platform for real-time access to cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility reports and its potential impact on evidence-based antibiotic prescribing in bacteremia.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Role of artificial intelligence in ICU therapeutic decision-making for severe infections.Current opinion in critical care · 2025Review
- Leveraging Hospital Information Data for Effective Antibiotic Stewardship.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- The role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in predicting and combating antimicrobial resistance.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Errors in antibiotic prescriptions are frequent, often resulting from the inadequate coverage of the infection-causative microorganism. The efficacy of iAST, a machine-learning-based software offering empirical and organism-targeted antibiotic recommendations, was assessed. The study was conducted in a 12-hospital Spanish institution. After model fine-tuning with 27,531 historical antibiograms, 325 consecutive patients with acute infections were selected for retrospective validation. The primary endpoint was comparing each of the top three of iAST's antibiotic recommendations' success rates (confirmed by antibiogram results) with the antibiotic prescribed by the physicians. Secondary endpoints included examining the same hypothesis within specific study population subgroups and assessing antibiotic stewardship by comparing the percentage of antibiotics recommended that belonged to different World Health Organization AWaRe groups within each arm of the study. All of iAST first three recommendations were non-inferior to doctor prescription in the primary endpoint analysis population as well as the secondary endpoint. The overall success rate of doctors' empirical treatment was 68.93%, while that of the first three iAST options was 91.06% ( CLINICAL TRIALS: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT06174519.
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.