ArticleScientific reports2026
Development and validation of a bacteremia prediction score for adult emergency department patients using hybrid machine learning and regression.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Service-Specific Heterogeneity in Sepsis Variable Significance and Machine Learning Model Performance: A Stratified Analysis of the BIAlert Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bacteremia requires early detection and appropriate treatment. High rates of false-positives in blood cultures in emergency departments (EDs) have led to the need for accurate predictive tools. This study developed and validated a bacteremia prediction score to improve patient selection for blood cultures. A multicenter retrospective cohort study used data from a tertiary academic hospital in Republic of Korea (2014–2019) to develop and validate the model, with external validation at two additional hospitals (Hospital A and Hospital B) (2022). The AutoScore method, integrating machine learning and logistic regression, generated the score using initial vital signs and laboratory data. Model performance was assessed via the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Of 24,856 patients, 17,373 formed the development cohort, 2491 the validation cohort, and 4992 the test cohort. Bacteremia incidence was 11.39%. The score, incorporating eight variables (procalcitonin, lactate, white blood cell count, c-reactive protein, blood urea nitrogen, body temperature, platelet count, and total bilirubin), achieved an AUROC of 0.825 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.808–0.842), outperforming procalcitonin (0.808; 95% CI, 0.790–0.826), SOFA score (0.718; 95% CI, 0.696–0.741), MEWS score (0.630; 95% CI, 0.606–0.654) and SIRS score (0.583; 95% CI, 0.558–0.608). External validation yielded AUROCs of 0.796 (95% CI, 0.773–0.818) at Hospital A and 0.813 (95% CI, 0.778–0.848) at Hospital B. Risk stratification categorized patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups with bacteremia rates of 2.6–3.2%, 5.2–9.3%, and 23.7–30.2%. A bacteremia prediction score was developed and validated using AutoScore, integrating machine learning and logistic regression. The model, based on eight clinical variables, stratified patients by risk and showed favorable predictive performance compared with conventional markers.
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.