ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Identification of protein biomarkers to differentiate between gram-negative and gram-positive infections in adults suspected of sepsis.
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.
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.
- Bacterial bloodstream infections in cardiac patients: microbiological spectrum, antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, and biomarker correlation analysis at a cardiac tertiary care centre.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Observational
- Evaluation of Potential Therapeutic Targets for Bacterial Infectious Skin Diseases: A Proteome-Wide Mendelian Randomization Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is mostly caused by bacterial infections and requires a prompt diagnosis. There is a need for improved diagnostics by differentiating between gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial infections.
methodsThe plasma levels of 285 unique proteins in patients with gram-negative infection (n = 154), gram-positive infection (n = 92), and in healthy controls (n = 35) were quantified using proximity extension assay. Three machine learning algorithms; random forest, recursive feature elimination, and adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) were employed to identify discriminative proteins, with their effectiveness assessed using accuracy metrics. The selected proteins were further evaluated for their ability to differentiate between gram-negative and gram-positive infections through logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
resultsWe identified 55 discriminative proteins differentiating between gram-negative and gram-positive infections using the Lasso, the best performing algorithm. The discriminative proteins achieved AUROC values of 0.69 for gram-negative infections and 0.66 for gram-positive infections, both compared to the remaining groups, and 0.58 for differentiating between the two infection groups. Comparative statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in protein expression between gram-negative and gram-positive patients.
conclusionsWe identified 55 proteins with some discriminative potential between gram-negative and gram-positive infections. However, the overall predictive performance was low and did not exceed that of established single biomarkers. These findings highlight the challenges of applying a multimarker approach in infection classification and emphasize the need for further studies using larger and more diverse cohorts, as well as broader analytical methods, to explore their potential clinical utility. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable.
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.