SynthesisInfectious diseases and therapy2026
Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Models for Predicting Bloodstream Infections in Large Cohorts: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Infectious diseases and therapy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMachine learning (ML) models have been increasingly applied to support the diagnosis of bloodstream infections (BSI), particularly through the analysis of large routinely collected healthcare datasets. However, it remains uncertain whether large sample sizes alone are sufficient to achieve high diagnostic accuracy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ML-based models for BSI in large cohorts.
methodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to December 31, 2025 (Prospero registration CRD420251080948). We included observational studies evaluating ML models for BSI diagnosis with ≥ 1000 patients or BSI episodes and reporting sufficient data to reconstruct diagnostic accuracy measures. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate random-effects Reitsma model. Secondary analyses included pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC-AUC), predictive values, subgroup analyses, and meta-regression.
resultsTwenty-four retrospective studies were included. Most studies evaluated adult hospitalized patients and used routinely collected structured data, including laboratory, vital sign, and administrative variables. Tree-based ensemble algorithms were the most commonly used architectures. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 76.6% (95% CI 66.1-84.7%) and 84.5% (95% CI 75.4-90.7%), respectively, with an SROC-AUC of 0.87. The pooled prevalence of BSI was 9.5%, corresponding to pooled positive and negative predictive values of 34.2% and 97.2%, respectively. Significant inter-study heterogeneity was observed (I
conclusionsML-based models demonstrated good overall diagnostic performance for predicting BSI, but accuracy remains insufficient to solidly support clinical decision-making at the present time. These findings may suggest that increasing dataset size alone could not overcome limitations related to the limited clinical granularity of routinely extracted structured data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42665777What 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.