Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40036494›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2025

An AI-Based Clinical Decision Support System for Antibiotic Therapy in Sepsis (KINBIOTICS): Use Case Analysis.

Juliane Andrea Düvel, David Lampe, Maren Kirchner, Svenja Elkenkamp, Philipp Cimiano, Christoph Düsing, Hannah Marchi, Sophie Schmiegel, Christiane Fuchs, Simon Claßen and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

14 authors.

Juliane Andrea DüvelCentre for electronic Public Health Research (CePHR), School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 10 01 31, Bielefeld, D-33501, Germany, 49 521-106-2648.ORCID 0000-0001-5700-4852
David LampeAG 5 - Health Economics and Health Care Management, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3400-0861
Maren KirchnerAG 5 - Health Economics and Health Care Management, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-9291-7507
Svenja ElkenkampAG 5 - Health Economics and Health Care Management, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8704-1208
Philipp CimianoAG Semantic Computing, Technical Faculty, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4771-441X
Christoph DüsingAG Semantic Computing, Technical Faculty, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7817-9448
Hannah MarchiData Science Group, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0607-6033
Sophie SchmiegelData Science Group, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9632-3426
Christiane FuchsData Science Group, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3565-8315
Simon ClaßenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Surgical Intensive Care, Emergency Medicine, and Pain Therapy, Hospital Bielefeld, University Hospital Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0009-0009-6183-3931
Kirsten-Laura MeierDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Surgical Intensive Care, Emergency Medicine, and Pain Therapy, Hospital Bielefeld, University Hospital Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0009-0009-3354-9626
Rainer BorgstedtDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency Medicine, Transfusion Medicine and Pain Therapy, Campus Bielefeld-Bethel, University Hospital Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2870-745X
Sebastian RehbergDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency Medicine, Transfusion Medicine and Pain Therapy, Campus Bielefeld-Bethel, University Hospital Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5835-7083
Wolfgang GreinerAG 5 - Health Economics and Health Care Management, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9552-6969

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial resistances pose significant challenges in health care systems. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) represent a potential strategy for promoting a more targeted and guideline-based use of antibiotics. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into these systems has the potential to support physicians in selecting the most effective drug therapy for a given patient. Objective: This study aimed to analyze the feasibility of an AI-based CDSS pilot version for antibiotic therapy in sepsis patients and identify facilitating and inhibiting conditions for its implementation in intensive care medicine. Methods: The evaluation was conducted in 2 steps, using a qualitative methodology. Initially, expert interviews were conducted, in which intensive care physicians were asked to assess the AI-based recommendations for antibiotic therapy in terms of plausibility, layout, and design. Subsequently, focus group interviews were conducted to examine the technology acceptance of the AI-based CDSS. The interviews were anonymized and evaluated using content analysis. Results: In terms of the feasibility, barriers included variability in previous antibiotic administration practices, which affected the predictive ability of AI recommendations, and the increased effort required to justify deviations from these recommendations. Physicians' confidence in accepting or rejecting recommendations depended on their level of professional experience. The ability to re-evaluate CDSS recommendations and an intuitive, user-friendly system design were identified as factors that enhanced acceptance and usability. Overall, barriers included low levels of digitization in clinical practice, limited availability of cross-sectoral data, and negative previous experiences with CDSSs. Conversely, facilitators to CDSS implementation were potential time savings, physicians' openness to adopting new technologies, and positive previous experiences. Conclusions: Early integration of users is beneficial for both the identification of relevant context factors and the further development of an effective CDSS. Overall, the potential of AI-based CDSSs is offset by inhibiting contextual conditions that impede its acceptance and implementation. The advancement of AI-based CDSSs and the mitigation of these inhibiting conditions are crucial for the realization of its full potential.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsArtificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalSepsisFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchAnti-Bacterial AgentsAIalgorithmanalyticsantimicrobial resistanceartificial intelligenceCDSSclinical decision support systemclinical supportdecision-makingdeep learningearly detectionearly warninginfectioninfectious diseasemachine learningMLmodelpredictive modelssepsistechnology acceptanceuse case analysis

Identifiers

PMID40036494
PMCPMC11896086

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.