Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40241963›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2025

Artificial intelligence in hospital infection prevention: an integrative review.

Rabie Adel El Arab, Zainab Almoosa, May Alkhunaizi, Fuad H Abuadas, Joel Somerville

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Rabie Adel El ArabAlmoosa College of Health Sciences, Al Mubarraz, Saudi Arabia.
Zainab AlmoosaDepartment of Infectious Disease, Almoosa Specialist Hospital, Al Mubarraz, Saudi Arabia.
May AlkhunaiziAlmoosa College of Health Sciences, Al Mubarraz, Saudi Arabia.
Fuad H AbuadasDepartment of Community Health Nursing, College of Nursing, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia.
Joel SomervilleInverness College, University of the Highlands and Island, Inverness, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) represent a persistent challenge in healthcare, contributing to substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers promising potential for improving HAIs prevention through advanced predictive capabilities. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness, usability, and challenges of AI models in preventing, detecting, and managing HAIs. Methods: This integrative review synthesized findings from 42 studies, guided by the SPIDER framework for inclusion criteria. We assessed the quality of included studies by applying the TRIPOD checklist to individual predictive studies and the AMSTAR 2 tool for reviews. Results: AI models demonstrated high predictive accuracy for the detection, surveillance, and prevention of multiple HAIs, with models for surgical site infections and urinary tract infections frequently achieving area-under-the-curve (AUC) scores exceeding 0.80, indicating strong reliability. Comparative data suggest that while both machine learning and deep learning approaches perform well, some deep learning models may offer slight advantages in complex data environments. Advanced algorithms, including neural networks, decision trees, and random forests, significantly improved detection rates when integrated with EHRs, enabling real-time surveillance and timely interventions. In resource-constrained settings, non-real-time AI models utilizing historical EHR data showed considerable scalability, facilitating broader implementation in infection surveillance and control. AI-supported surveillance systems outperformed traditional methods in accurately identifying infection rates and enhancing compliance with hand hygiene protocols. Furthermore, Explainable AI (XAI) frameworks and interpretability tools such as Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) values increased clinician trust and facilitated actionable insights. AI also played a pivotal role in antimicrobial stewardship by predicting the emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms and guiding optimal antibiotic usage, thereby reducing reliance on second-line treatments. However, challenges including the need for comprehensive clinician training, high integration costs, and ensuring compatibility with existing workflows were identified as barriers to widespread adoption. Discussion: The integration of AI in HAI prevention and management represents a potentially transformative shift in enhancing predictive capabilities and supporting effective infection control measures. Successful implementation necessitates standardized validation protocols, transparent data reporting, and the development of user-friendly interfaces to ensure seamless adoption by healthcare professionals. Variability in data sources and model validations across studies underscores the necessity for multicenter collaborations and external validations to ensure consistent performance across diverse healthcare environments. Innovations in non-real-time AI frameworks offer viable solutions for scaling AI applications in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), addressing the higher prevalence of HAIs in these regions. Conclusions: Artificial Intelligence stands as a transformative tool in the fight against hospital-acquired infections, offering advanced solutions for prevention, surveillance, and management. To fully realize its potential, the healthcare sector must prioritize rigorous validation standards, comprehensive data quality reporting, and the incorporation of interpretability tools to build clinician confidence. By adopting scalable AI models and fostering interdisciplinary collaborations, healthcare systems can overcome existing barriers, integrating AI seamlessly into infection control policies and ultimately enhancing patient safety and care quality. Further research is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness, real-world applications, and strategies (e.g., clinician training and the integration of explainable AI) to improve trust and broaden clinical adoption.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCross InfectionInfection ControlHumansartificial intelligenceexplainable AIhospital-acquired infectionsinfection controlinfection preventioninfection surveillancepredictive analytics

Identifiers

PMID40241963
PMCPMC12001280

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.