ArticleScientific reports2025
Prediction of bloodstream infection using machine learning based primarily on biochemical data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Models for Predicting Bloodstream Infections in Large Cohorts: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Risk Factors of Blood Culture Positivity and Mortality in Bloodstream Infections: A Population-Based Study of Patients With B-Cell Malignancies.European journal of haematology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of bacterial infection foci: model development, calibration and uncertainty quantification using conformal prediction methods.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- FromFrontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early diagnosis of bloodstream infection (BSI) is crucial for informed antibiotic use. This study developed a machine learning approach for early BSI detection using a comprehensive dataset from Rigshospitalet, Denmark (2010-2020). The dataset included 144,398 samples from adult patients, containing blood culture results, demographics, and up to 36 biochemical variables. Positive blood culture was observed in 6.4% of samples, mostly caused by Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus faecium. 80% of the samples (N = 43,351 patients) were used for ML model development and five-fold cross-validation, with 20% for independent testing (N = 10,837). Among seven models, LightGBM performed best, achieving an AUC of 0.69 on the test set. It was more accurate in detecting negatives, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.96 and specificity of 0.74, compared to a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.13 and sensitivity of 0.54. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) identified platelets, leukocytes, and neutrophils-to-lymphocytes as the top-3 predictive features. The model showed higher sensitivity (average 0.66) for common pathogens, e.g., 0.71 for E. coli. Results highlight the potential of biochemical variables as diagnostic factors for BSI, indicating clinical use to focus on identifying patients at low risks and can be further enhanced in future investigations.
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.