Observational studyFrontiers in public health2025
Artificial intelligence-driven prediction and interpretation of central line-associated bloodstream infections in ICU: insights from the MIMIC-IV database.
Observational study in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Hidden failure modes of large language models in healthcare-associated infection surveillance: a structured evaluation using NHSN definitions.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Early Prediction of Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in the ICU: A Multicenter Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and internally validate interpretable machine learning (ML) models for predicting individual central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) risk in adult ICU patients with central venous catheters (CVCs) using the MIMIC-IV database. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using the MIMIC-IV database. Adult ICU patients with both central venous catheter placement and blood culture evaluation were included. Patients were classified into CLABSI and non-CLABSI cohorts based on central venous catheter tip culture results. A comprehensive set of demographic, physiological, laboratory, therapeutic, and nursing variables was extracted. Feature selection employed Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression. Seven machine learning (ML) models-logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, XGBoost, support vector machine, neural network, and gradient boosting-were developed and compared. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and Brier score. The optimal model was interpreted with SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values to elucidate feature contributions. Results: Among 11,999 ICU patients, 519 (4.3%) developed CLABSI. CLABSI patients were younger (61.0 vs. 66.0 years), had higher rates of multi-lumen catheters (91.3 vs. 63.6%), mechanical ventilation (90.9 vs. 74.0%), and dialysis (34.9 vs. 7.2%; all Conclusion: Machine learning models, particularly the random forest model, accurately predict CLABSI risk in ICU patients. The use of interpretable AI techniques such as SHAP enhances transparency and provides actionable insights for clinical practice. These findings support the development of early warning systems to reduce CLABSI incidence and improve patient outcomes.
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.