ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2026
A protocol for retrospective evaluation of potential patient-level harms of an AI tool for blood culture stewardship.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support tools are increasingly developed for diagnostic stewardship, yet their clinical adoption remains limited. A barrier to implementation is concern about potential patient-level harm, particularly when algorithms recommend withholding diagnostic tests that would otherwise be standard practice. Existing evaluation frameworks emphasize aggregate performance metrics but do not provide structured methods to assess clinical consequences of algorithmic errors prior to implementation. Objective: Developing a protocol for retrospective, patient-level evaluation of potential harms associated with false-negative predictions of an AI-tool for blood culture stewardship in the emergency department. Methods: We developed a protocol to identify and evaluate cases at potential risk of harm following retrospective application of an AI-model predicting blood culture outcomes. False-negative cases, defined as positive blood cultures with a model-predicted probability below 5%, are selected after exclusion of contaminants and clinical scenarios in which the algorithm would not be applied. Multidisciplinary experts perform case-by-case evaluation using a questionnaire covering three domains: antibiotic management, diagnostic procedures, and patient outcomes, supplemented by overall harm and cost assessments. Inter-observer agreement is quantified, and discrepancies are resolved through expert adjudication. Expected outcomes and significance: This protocol is designed as a preimplementation safety assessment to support go/no-go decisions for advancing AI tools into clinical research or practice. By operationalizing patient-level harm assessment using routinely collected data, the framework complements existing AI evaluation standards and addresses a critical gap in diagnostic stewardship. Although developed for blood culture stewardship, the protocol may be adaptable to other AI-based decision support tools in infectious diseases and beyond.
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.