Developing Machine-Learning Prediction Algorithm for Bacteremia in Admitted Patients.
bacteremia
blood culture prediction
machine learning
predictive medicine
Journal
Infection and drug resistance
ISSN: 1178-6973
Titre abrégé: Infect Drug Resist
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101550216
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
23
11
2020
accepted:
14
01
2021
entrez:
4
3
2021
pubmed:
5
3
2021
medline:
5
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bloodstream infection among hospitalized patients is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Blood culture is routinely ordered in patients with suspected infections, although 90% of blood cultures do not show any growth of organisms. The evidence regarding the prediction of bacteremia is scarce. A retrospective review of blood cultures requested for a cohort of admitted patients between 2017 and 2019 was undertaken. Several machine-learning models were used to identify the best prediction model. Additionally, univariate and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the predictive factors for bacteremia. A total of 36,405 blood cultures of 7157 patients were done. There were 2413 (6.62%) positive blood cultures. The best prediction was by using NN with the high specificity of 88% but low sensitivity. There was a statistical difference in the following factors: longer admission days before the blood culture, presence of a central line, and higher lactic acid-more than 2 mmol/L. Despite the low positive rate of blood culture, machine learning could predict positive blood culture with high specificity but minimum sensitivity. Yet, the SIRS score, qSOFA score, and other known factors were not good prognostic factors. Further improvement and training would possibly enhance machine-learning performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33658812
doi: 10.2147/IDR.S293496
pii: 293496
pmc: PMC7920583
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
757-765Informations de copyright
© 2021 Mahmoud et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Bioinformatics. 2001 Jun;17(6):520-5
pubmed: 11395428
J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Sep;45(9):2765-9
pubmed: 17567782
Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 15;8(1):12233
pubmed: 30111827
Crit Care Med. 2019 Nov;47(11):1485-1492
pubmed: 31389839
J Emerg Med. 2012 Mar;42(3):254-9
pubmed: 20674238
Med Intensiva. 2017 Jan - Feb;41(1):38-40
pubmed: 27255771
Am J Infect Control. 2016 Feb;44(2):167-72
pubmed: 26577629
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Aug 22;71(5):1339-1347
pubmed: 31942949
Cancer. 2006 May 15;106(10):2258-66
pubmed: 16575919
Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Sep;81(9):1159-71
pubmed: 16970212
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Dec;94(49):e2264
pubmed: 26656373
Ann Intern Med. 1990 Oct 1;113(7):495-500
pubmed: 2393205
Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Feb 1;38(3):357-62
pubmed: 14727205
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Support Care Cancer. 2011 Jul;19(7):1001-8
pubmed: 20596732
JAMA. 2014 Apr 2;311(13):1308-16
pubmed: 24638143
Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Apr;32(4):330-3
pubmed: 24462198
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013 Jun;19(6):501-9
pubmed: 23473333
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 Apr;49(4):1306-11
pubmed: 15793102
J Hosp Med. 2016 May;11(5):336-40
pubmed: 26762577
J Emerg Med. 2008 Oct;35(3):255-64
pubmed: 18486413
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011 Dec;30(12):1615-9
pubmed: 21503837
Clin Infect Dis. 2006 May 1;42(9):1274-82
pubmed: 16586387
JAMA. 2012 Aug 1;308(5):502-11
pubmed: 22851117
Crit Care Med. 1992 Jun;20(6):864-74
pubmed: 1597042