ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Prediction of infection in the emergency department-a machine learning model.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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.
- AI-based clinical prediction model for early infectious disease classification in the emergency department.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into emergency medicine holds promise for enhancing early diagnosis and clinical decision-making. Traditional diagnostic approaches often rely on physician judgment or early warning scores that may delay identification of infections, especially when these tools prioritize outcomes such as mortality or ICU admission over early infection detection. Objective: This study aimed to identify the most informative predictors of infection at emergency department (ED) admission using machine learning (ML), and to develop a predictive model for infection among acutely admitted patients with suspected infection. Methods: Four ML algorithms were evaluated: Logistic Regression (LR), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Decision Tree (DT), and Random Forest (RF). Sequential forward selection was applied to LR and KNN to optimize predictor input. DT and RF incorporated intrinsic feature selection. Model performance was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), accuracy, area under the ROC curve (AUC), average precision score (AP) with five-fold cross-validation. Results: RF model outperformed the other ML models, achieving a specificity of 75%, a PPV of 94%, and an accuracy of 80% while DT showed marginally higher sensitivity but poorer specificity. LR and KNN demonstrated intermediate performance. The RF model had the highest mean AUC of 84% and AP of 96%. Conclusion: RF model using readily available clinical variables-including C-reactive protein, leucocyte count, temperature, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate-can effectively predict infection at ED admission. This supports the potential of ML to enhance early infection detection and guide timely treatment in emergency 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.