ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning prediction of mortality in pediatric fungemia using the Candida score.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Characteristics, Management, and 30-Day Mortality Predictors in an 18-Year Pediatric Candidemia Cohort.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Pediatric fungemia in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) carries high mortality. We evaluated whether the Candida Score, combined with clinical variables, predicts mortality after diagnosis using a prespecified multivariable logistic regression (primary model) and benchmarked discrimination against Random Forest and Gradient Boosting Machine. We analyzed 85 pediatric fungemia cases from a PICU (2016-2020). The prespecified primary model was multivariable logistic regression with predefined covariates; Random Forest and Gradient Boosting Machine were exploratory comparators. Discrimination was evaluated on a held-out test set and by 10-fold cross-validation and bootstrapping. In 85 cases, the median age was 6 months and median weight 4.8 kg; 62.4% were male. Candida albicans was the most prevalent species (37.6%). Of the subjects, 39 (45.9%) died and 46 (54.1%) survived. On the held-out test set (n = 17), logistic regression achieved accuracy 0.735 and AUC 0.800. Random Forest achieved AUC 0.861 (precision 1.000; recall 0.778), and Gradient Boosting achieved AUC 0.847 (precision 0.875; recall 0.778). Internal validation (10-fold cross-validation and bootstrap resampling) supported model stability.Conclusion Integrating the Candida Score with clinical predictors shows potential for mortality risk stratification after fungemia diagnosis. In this single-center cohort, Random Forest yielded the highest discrimination on the test set. Findings are exploratory and require external validation in larger, multicenter studies before clinical use.
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.