ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
AI-Based Treatment Recommendations Enhance Speed and Accuracy in Bacteremia Management: A Comparative Study of Molecular and Phenotypic Data.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of OneChoice AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Recommendations with Infectious Disease Specialists and Non-Specialists for Empirical Urinary Tract Infection Therapy in Lima, Peru.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Recent advancements in artificial intelligence applications for the mitigation of antimicrobial resistance: challenges and opportunities.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Bacteriophage Science: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Applications, Challenges, and Translational Opportunities.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Observational
- Guiding Antibiotic Therapy with Machine Learning: Real-World Applications of a CDSS in Bacteremia Management.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBloodstream infections continue to pose a serious global health threat due to their high morbidity and mortality, further worsened by rising antimicrobial resistance and delays in starting targeted therapy. This study assesses the accuracy and timeliness of therapeutic recommendations produced by an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven and machine-learning (ML) clinical decision support system (CDSS), comparing results based on molecular diagnostics alone with those that combine molecular and phenotypic data (standard cultures).
methodsIn a prospective cross-sectional study conducted in Lima, Peru, 117 blood cultures were analyzed using FilmArray/GeneXpert for molecular identification and MALDI-TOF/VITEK 2.0 for phenotypic profiling. The AI/ML-based CDSS provided treatment recommendations in two formats, which were assessed for concordance and turnaround time.
resultsTherapeutic recommendations showed 80.3% consistency between data types, with 86.3% concordance in pathogen and resistance detection. Notably, molecular-only recommendations were delivered 29 h earlier than those incorporating phenotypic data. Escherichia coli was the most frequently isolated pathogen, with a 95% concordance in suggested therapy. A substantial agreement was observed in treatment consistency (Kappa = 0.80).
conclusionsThese findings highlight the potential of using AI-powered CDSS in conjunction with molecular diagnostics to accelerate clinical decision-making in bacteremia, supporting more timely interventions and improved antimicrobial stewardship. Further research is warranted to assess scalability and impact across diverse clinical settings.
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.