ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
From microscopy to antimicrobial decisions: a clinically grounded roadmap for critical care infectious diseases.
Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the intensive care unit (ICU), antibiotics often begin under extreme uncertainty. Fever, leukocytosis, hypotension, and organ dysfunction may signal bacterial infection, but the same findings are common with aspiration, post-operative inflammation, drug reactions, or sterile systemic inflammation. Cultures take time and their yield falls after antibiotics. Rapid molecular tests and metagenomics can add actionable information, but they also raise the burden of interpreting complex results. Microscopy is one of the few inputs that can shift management within minutes to hours: Gram-stain patterns from positive blood-culture bottles, respiratory specimens, cerebrospinal fluid, and wound material can reshape initial coverage and support early de-escalation when negative. Tissue and cytology help distinguish invasion from key mimics. The gap is consistency-reads vary across observers, workflows differ, and results do not always translate into reliable bedside actions. This review focuses on infectious-disease artificial intelligence (AI) as ICU bedside decision support, rather than as a survey of models. Using ICU sepsis as the primary use case-and neurocritical care as a challenging setting where sedation, brain injury, and noninfectious inflammation often mimic infection-we separate evidence into pathogen signals and host-response signals. We then map both streams to six decisions over the first 72 hours: start now versus pause, choose initial spectrum, reassess and narrow, escalate diagnostics and source control, act on high-risk resistance or invasive pathogens, and stop safely. We summarize where AI is most credible today (Gram-stain assistance, culture-plate triage, urine-culture screening, infection-focused digital pathology, host-response classifiers, and selected metagenomics) and what makes outputs actionable: calibrated probabilities, explicit confidence with safe deferral when uncertain, validation across hospitals and instruments, and endpoints tied to stewardship and safety (time to appropriate therapy, antibiotic days, de-escalation within 72 hours, missed bacteremia). Evidence was updated through February 28, 2026.
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.