ArticleScientific reports2026
Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting positive blood cultures using vital signs in ICU patients.
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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bloodstream infections require timely and appropriate diagnosis and treatment, as inadequate management is associated with higher mortality. Previous predictive models for bloodstream infection have generally incorporated laboratory test results in addition to vital signs, although laboratory results are not always immediately available in clinical practice. This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning model to predict positive blood cultures using only vital signs in febrile intensive care unit (ICU) patients (maximum BT ≥ 38 °C). Clinical data from ICU patients at two university hospitals were included, with 597 blood cultures used for model development and 366 for external validation. Six explanatory variables derived from body temperature, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure measured over three days were used to construct a Balanced Random Forest model. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.700 ± 0.072 for internal validation and 0.679 ± 0.010 for external validation. SHapley Additive exPlanations value analysis indicated that a larger temperature range contributed to positive predictions, while no increase in temperature, increases in blood pressure, and a decrease in heart rate contributed to negative predictions. The model demonstrates moderate predictive performance and shows comparable results across different datasets. It can continuously monitor the need for blood cultures, thereby serving as an adjunctive tool to support clinical decision-making.
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.