ArticleScientific reports2026
Explainable machine learning with routine biomarkers identifies culture-defined bacteremic urosepsis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Urosepsis is a severe complication of urinary tract infection (UTI) and may lead to organ dysfunction and death. Early identification remains challenging at initial presentation, highlighting the need for improved risk stratification using routinely available data. This single-center retrospective study analyzed clinical data from 182 hospitalized patients with culture-confirmed UTI, including 89 with culture-defined bacteremic urosepsis (concurrent positive blood and urine cultures) and 93 with non-bacteremic UTI. Random Forest (RF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and multivariable logistic regression (LR) models were developed using routine biomarkers obtained within 0-24 h of the index time; outcomes were assigned using culture results within 48-72 h to minimize information leakage. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with bootstrap 95% confidence interval (CI) on a held-out test set. D-dimer was consistently ranked among the top predictors. Compared with non-bacteremic UTI, bacteremic urosepsis showed higher procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and white blood cell count (WBC) and lower albumin (all p < 0.05). On the held-out test set (n = 37; positives = 18), XGBoost achieved an AUC of 0.886 (95% CI 0.763-0.971), compared with 0.822 (95% CI 0.665-0.938) for RF and 0.822 (95% CI 0.663-0.935) for LR; the AUC difference between XGBoost and RF was not statistically significant (DeLong p = 0.072). Using routine biomarkers available within 24 h, RF and XGBoost demonstrated good discrimination for culture-defined bacteremic urosepsis among inpatients with culture-confirmed UTI. XGBoost yielded a numerically higher AUC than RF, but the difference was not statistically significant in this modest test set. D-dimer, procalcitonin, and albumin emerged as key predictors, supporting the potential utility of routine laboratory indicators for early risk stratification pending external validation.
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.