ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Predicting Gram-negative bloodstream infection in elderly patients after isolation of GNB from non-blood specimens: a machine learning-based tool.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to develop a machine learning-based model for the early identification of elderly inpatients at high risk of Gram-negative bloodstream infection immediately following the first detection of Gram-negative bacteria in non-blood specimens (e.g., urine, sputum, wound secretions), during the 48-72 h window before blood culture results become available. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted across three centers of Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (Qingyang, Caotang, and Chengdong Campuses). It enrolled 9,646 elderly inpatients with Gram-negative bacteria positivity in any specimen during their hospitalization between January 2017 and December 2022. Predictor variables were screened using LASSO regression and Boruta algorithm, and their clinical significance was validated via the Delphi expert consultation method. Six machine learning models-random forest, XGBoost, logistic regression, artificial neural network, k-nearest neighbors, and decision tree-were developed. The discriminatory performance of the models was evaluated using a comprehensive set of metrics, including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve along with other key indicators such as accuracy and recall. Results: The XGBoost model demonstrated the optimal performance among the developed models, achieving a test set AUC of 0.816 (95% CI: 0.766-0.861), accuracy of 0.733, recall of 0.760, while logistic regression offered a simpler alternative with acceptable accuracy. Seven predictive variables were identified: maximum procalcitonin level, max neutrophil percentage, maximum C-reactive protein level, minimum white blood cell count, venous catheter, age, and length of hospital stay. SHAP variable importance analysis identified maximum procalcitonin level, length of hospital stays, and max_neutrophil_percentage as the top three most important predictors. External validation in an independent MIMIC-IV database confirmed acceptable generalizability. Conclusion: The predictive model developed for Gram-negative bloodstream infections in elderly patients demonstrates promising predictive ability. It overcomes the temporal limitations of traditional blood culture, enabling the identification of high-risk elderly patients at the earliest stage of infection. This approach provides clinicians with a valuable intervention window and represents a novel pathway toward precision infection control.
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.