Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40394073›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Prediction of bloodstream infection using machine learning based primarily on biochemical data.

Ramtin Zargari Marandi, Frederik Boetius Hertz, Jesper Qvist Thomassen, Steen Christian Rasmussen, Ruth Frikke-Schmidt, Niels Frimodt-Møller, Karen Leth Nielsen, Cameron Ross MacPherson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. FromFrontiers in medicine · 2025
    Article
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

8 authors.

Ramtin Zargari MarandiCentre of Excellence for Health, Immunity and Infections (CHIP), Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen , Denmark.
Frederik Boetius HertzDepartment of Clinical Microbiology 9301, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Henrik Harpestrengs vej 4A, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. frederik.boetius.hertz@regionh.dk.
Jesper Qvist ThomassenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Steen Christian RasmussenDepartment of Clinical Microbiology 9301, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Henrik Harpestrengs vej 4A, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ruth Frikke-SchmidtDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Niels Frimodt-MøllerDepartment of Clinical Microbiology 9301, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Henrik Harpestrengs vej 4A, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Karen Leth NielsenDepartment of Clinical Microbiology 9301, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Henrik Harpestrengs vej 4A, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Cameron Ross MacPhersonCentre of Excellence for Health, Immunity and Infections (CHIP), Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen , Denmark.

Funding

Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond 3101-00040BDanmarks Grundforskningsfond DNRF126
6 · The paper itself

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

BacteremiaMachine LearningSepsisAdultAgedDenmarkEscherichia coliFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedStaphylococcus aureusArtificial intelligenceBiomarkersClassification modelsClinical utilityDiagnosisElectronic medical recordsInfection managementInterpretabilityReal-world data

Identifiers

PMID40394073
PMCPMC12092749

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.