ArticleAcute and critical care2024
Early detection of bloodstream infection in critically ill children using artificial intelligence.
Article in Acute and critical care, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in intensive care units: a scoping review addressing the translational gap to clinical practice.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Early diagnosis and prognostic prediction of secondary bloodstream infections caused byFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the high mortality associated with bloodstream infection (BSI), early detection of this condition is challenging in critical settings. The objective of this study was to create a machine learning tool for rapid recognition of BSI in critically ill children.
methodsData were extracted from a derivative cohort comprising patients who underwent at least one blood culture during hospitalization in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of a tertiary hospital from January 2020 to June 2023 for model development. Data from another tertiary hospital were utilized for external validation. Variables selected for model development were age, white blood cell count with segmented neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, bilirubin, liver enzymes, glucose, body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rate. Algorithms compared were extra trees, random forest, light gradient boosting, extreme gradient boosting, and CatBoost.
resultsWe gathered 1,806 measurements and recorded 290 hospitalizations from 263 patients in the derivative cohort. Median age on admission was 43 months, with an interquartile range of 10-118.75 months, and a male predominance was observed (n=160, 55.2%). Candida albicans was the most prevalent pathogen, and median duration to confirm BSI was 3 days (range, 3-4). Patients with BSI experienced significantly higher in-hospital mortality and prolonged stays in the PICU than patients without BSI. Random forest classifier achieved the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.874 (0.762 for the validation set).
conclusionsWe developed a machine learning model that predicts BSI with acceptable performance. Further research is necessary to validate its effectiveness.
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.