Observational studyPloS one2026
Comparison of OneChoice AI-based clinical decision support recommendations with infectious disease specialists and non-specialists for bacteremia treatment in Lima, Peru.
Observational study in PloS one, 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.
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
Bacteremia is a major contributor to global morbidity and mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where diagnostic delays and empirical antimicrobial misuse exacerbate resistance. This study assessed the accuracy of OneChoice®, an artificial intelligence (AI)-based Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS), in guiding antimicrobial therapy for bloodstream infections (BSIs) in Lima, Peru. A cross-sectional, observational design was used, comparing therapeutic recommendations generated by OneChoice®-based on molecular (FilmArray®) and phenotypic (MALDI-TOF MS, VITEK2) data-with the clinical decisions of 94 physicians (35 infectious disease [ID] specialists and 59 non-specialists) across 366 survey-based evaluations of bacteremia cases. Concordance between CDSS and physician decisions was analyzed using Cohen's Kappa and logistic regression. The overall concordance rate was 96.1% when considering any suggested treatment, and 74.6% for the top recommendation, with a substantial agreement (κ = 0.70). ID specialists showed significantly higher concordance (κ = 0.78) than non-ID physicians (κ = 0.61), and specialization was the strongest predictor of agreement (OR = 2.26, p = 0.001). Escherichia coli cases had the highest concordance, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed the lowest. The CDSS reduced inappropriate antibiotic use, particularly unnecessary carbapenem prescriptions. These findings support the utility of AI-CDSS tools in enhancing antimicrobial stewardship and standardizing care, especially in resource-limited healthcare settings.
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.