ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Two-step deep-learning candidemia prediction model using two large time-sequence electronic health datasets.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Candidemia is a rare but life-threatening bloodstream infection that remains difficult to predict using conventional risk stratification approaches, highlighting the need for improved predictive strategies. As a result, empiric antifungal therapy is often delayed even in high-risk patients. Methods: We developed a deep learning model (PyTorch_EHR) to predict 7-day candidemia risk by using electronic health record data from two large cohorts (Houston Methodist Hospital System [HMHS] and MIMIC-IV), including adult inpatients who underwent at least one blood culture. Model performance was compared with logistic regression (LR), LightGBM, and established intensive care unit candidemia scores. We further implemented a two-step prediction framework integrating candidemia and 30-day mortality risk models to inform empiric antifungal decision-making. Results: Among 213,404 and 107,507 patients in the HMHS and MIMIC-IV cohorts, candidemia occurred in fewer than 1% (851 [0.4%] and 634 [0.6%], respectively). PyTorch_EHR outperformed LR, LightGBM, and existing candidemia scores, particularly in terms of area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) in HMHS and MIMIC-IV. By integrating 30-day mortality risk, the two-step framework identified an additional 20 and 28 candidemia cases beyond the one-step model, increasing coverage to 61% (121/199) and 46% (68/147) in HMHS and MIMIC-IV, respectively. Many patients identified by the two-step framework had high mortality yet did not receive empiric antifungal therapy (61.1% HMHS; 82.6% MIMIC-IV). Conclusion: A two-step deep-learning framework integrating candidemia and mortality risk may support early identification of high-risk patients and facilitate timely empiric antifungal therapy. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm the findings.
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.