ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Early prediction of bloodstream infections in ICU patients using machine learning methods based on routine laboratory parameters.
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 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
- A machine learning model for the early prediction of Gram-negative bloodstream infection in ICU patients.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBloodstream infections (BSIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Although blood cultures remain the diagnostic gold standard, their long turnaround time may hinder early risk warning. Early risk stratification using routinely available laboratory data may facilitate prompt clinical intervention. This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning (ML) models to predict the likelihood of BSIs in ICU patients based on laboratory tests obtained within the first 24 h of admission.
methodsThis was a retrospective, two-center cohort study using data from the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (SAH-SYSU) and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC, v3.0) database. Adult ICU patients (≥ 18 years) with available first-day laboratory results and blood culture data were included. Multiple ML algorithms, including random forest, XGBoost, GBM, LightGBM, and SVM, were trained and validated using tenfold cross-validation. Model performance was assessed via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration curves, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Feature selection was conducted using the Boruta algorithm to develop simplified models. External validation was performed across cohorts using shared features.
resultsA total of 754 patients from SAH-SYSU (BSI prevalence: 27.7%) and 3,136 patients from MIMIC (BSI prevalence: 14.0%) were included. Tree-based models outperformed linear classifiers. In internal validation, XGBoost achieved the best performance (AUROC = 0.87 in MIMIC, 0.83 in SYSU). Simplified models using Boruta-selected features retained similar predictive performance (p > 0.05). Cross-cohort validation yielded AUROCs of 0.61 (MIMIC → SYSU) and 0.64 (SYSU → MIMIC). A compact four-feature model demonstrated moderate performance (AUROC up to 0.65), supporting feasibility in resource-limited settings.
conclusionsML-based models using only routine laboratory tests from the first ICU day can effectively identify patients at increased risk of BSIs. These models offer a rapid, interpretable, and generalizable tool for early clinical decision-making. Future studies should prospectively validate the model and explore its integration into electronic health records to support real-time risk stratification.
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.