ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
An explainable machine learning approach to predicting carbapenem resistance in
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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
Background: Carbapenem-resistant Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 5,794 records collected from 2014 to 2024, including 999 carbapenem-resistant and 4,795 carbapenem-susceptible isolates. The prediction anchor was culture-specimen collection (T0), and all predictors were restricted to information available at or before T0. Seven algorithms and 18 sampling strategies were evaluated using patient-grouped five-fold cross-validation with fold-specific preprocessing. The selected resampling pipeline was compared with Platt-calibrated XGBoost using sensitivity-targeted, F2-maximizing, and cost-sensitive thresholds. Feature-restriction analyses, multiplicity-adjusted comparisons, ICU subgroup analysis, reconstructed prevalence scenarios, calibration assessment, and same-center temporal validation were also performed. Results: XGBoost and LightGBM showed comparable discrimination after multiplicity adjustment. ENN-BLSMOTE-XGBoost increased sensitivity and reduced the very-major-error rate (VME) at the default threshold, but slightly reduced ranking discrimination and increased false-positive alerts. Sensitivity-targeted threshold optimization of calibrated XGBoost produced an operating point close to that of the resampled model, indicating that much of the sensitivity gain could be achieved without changing the training distribution. After all duration-based predictors were excluded, ENN-BLSMOTE-XGBoost retained an ROC AUC of 0.940 and a PR AUC of 0.833. In the 2025 temporal cohort, the calibrated ENN-BLSMOTE-XGBoost model achieved an ROC AUC of 0.889, a PR AUC of 0.684, a sensitivity of 0.749, and a VME of 0.251; Platt scaling reduced its Brier score from 0.121 to 0.108. SHAP analysis identified ICU admission, vascular system disease, days of indwelling urinary catheterization, days of carbapenem use, and days of endotracheal intubation as the five highest-attribution predictors. A web calculator was developed to provide calibrated probability estimates referenced to the 17.24% resistance prevalence of the development cohort. Conclusion: The proposed model effectively addresses class imbalance in predicting carbapenem resistance in
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.