Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40275180›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025

Hospital-wide, dynamic, individualized prediction of central line-associated bloodstream infections-development and temporal evaluation of six prediction models.

Elena Albu, Shan Gao, Pieter Stijnen, Frank E Rademakers, Christel Janssens, Veerle Cossey, Yves Debaveye, Laure Wynants, Ben Van Calster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
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

9 authors.

Elena Albu *Department of Development & Regeneration, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
Shan Gao *Department of Development & Regeneration, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
Pieter StijnenManagement Information Reporting Department, University Hospitals Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
Frank E RademakersFaculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
Christel JanssensVascular Access Specialty Team, University Hospitals Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
Veerle CosseyDepartment of Development & Regeneration, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
Yves DebaveyeDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
Laure WynantsDepartment of Development & Regeneration, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium.
Ben Van CalsterDepartment of Development & Regeneration, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium. ben.vancalster@kuleuven.be.

Funding

Internal Funds KU Leuven C24M/20/064
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCentral line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) are preventable hospital-acquired infections. Predicting CLABSI helps improve early intervention strategies and enhance patient safety.

aimTo develop and temporally evaluate dynamic prediction models for continuous CLABSI risk monitoring.

methodsData from hospitalized patients with central catheter(s) admitted to University Hospitals Leuven between 2014 and 2017 were used to develop five dynamic models (a landmark cause-specific model, two random forest models, and two XGBoost models) to predict 7-day CLABSI risk, accounting for competing events (death, discharge, and catheter removal). The models' predictions were then combined using a superlearner model. All models were temporally evaluated on data from the same hospital from 2018 to 2020 using performance metrics for discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility.

findingsAmong 61629 catheter episodes in the training set, 1930 (3.1%) resulted in CLABSI, while in the test set of 44544 catheter episodes, 1059 (2.4%) experienced CLABSI. Among individual models, one XGBoost model achieved the highest AUROC of 0.748. Calibration was good for predicted risks up to 5%, while the cause-specific and XGBoost models overestimated higher predicted risks. The superlearner displayed a modest improvement in discrimination (AUROC up to 0.751) and better calibration than the cause-specific and XGBoost models, but worse than the random forest models. The models showed clinical utility to support standard care interventions (at risk thresholds between 0.5-4%), but not to support advanced interventions (at thresholds 15-25%).

conclusionHospital-wide CLABSI prediction models offer clinical utility based on medium-risk thresholds. Clinical utility at present may be limited as the model performance deteriorated over time.

Indexed as

BacteremiaCatheterization, Central VenousCatheter-Related InfectionsCross InfectionSepsisAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsBloodstream infectionCLABSIDynamic modelRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID40275180
PMCPMC12023667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.