ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2025
Deep Learning for the Early Diagnosis of Candidemia.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCandidemia carries a heavy burden in terms of mortality, especially when presenting as septic shock, and its early diagnosis remains crucial.
methodsWe assessed the performance of a deep learning model for the early differential diagnosis between candidemia and bacteremia. The model was trained on a large dataset of automatically extracted laboratory features.
resultsA total of 12,483 episodes of candidemia (1275; 10%) or bacteremia (11,208; 90%) were included. For recognizing candidemia, a deep learning model showed sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.59, positive predictive value (PPV) 0.18, weighted PPV (wPPV) 0.88, and negative predictive value (NPV) 0.96 on the training set (area under the curve [AUC] 0.69), and sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.58, PPV 0.16, wPPV 0.87, and NPV 0.95 on the test set (AUC 0.64). Then, the learned discriminatory ability was tested in the subgroup of patients with available serum β-D-glucan (BDG) and procalcitonin (PCT) values to explore additive or synergistic effects with these more specific markers. Both feature selection and transfer learning did not improve the diagnostic performance of a model based on BDG and PCT only.
conclusionsA deep learning model trained on nonspecific laboratory features showed some discriminatory ability to differentiate candidemia from bacteremia, highlighting the ability of deep learning to exploit complex patterns within nonspecific laboratory data. However, the learned patterns did not improve the diagnostic performance of more specific markers. Further exploration of candidemia prediction using laboratory features through machine learning techniques remains a promising area of research, serving as a valuable complement to the development of large-scale models that also incorporate clinical features.
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.