Recent Advancements in Machine Learning-Based Bloodstream Infection Prediction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Bopche, R.; Damas, J. K.
Show abstract
PurposeBloodstream infections (BSIs) present significant public health challenges. With the advent of machine learning (ML), promising predictive models have been developed. This study evaluates their performance through a systematic review and meta-analysis. MethodsWe performed a comprehensive systematic review across multiple databases, including PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, SpringerLink, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies focused on BSIs within any hospital setting, employing ML models as the diagnostic test. We evaluated the risk of bias with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Models reporting the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were included in the meta-analysis to identify key performance drivers. ResultsAfter screening, a total of 30 studies were eligible for synthesis, from which 41 models and 8 data types were extracted. Most of the studies were carried out in the inpatient settings (n=17; 56%), followed by the emergency department (ED) settings (n=7; 23%), and followed by the ICU settings (n=6; 20%). The reported AUROCs in the hospital inpatients settings, ranged from 0.51-0.866, in the ICU settings AUROCs ranged from 0.668-0.970, and in the emergency department (ED) settings the AUROCs of the models ranged from 0.728-0.844. One study reported prospective cohort study, while two prospectively validated their models. In the meta-analysis, laboratory tests, Complete Blood Count/Differential Count (CBC/DC), and ML model type contributed the most to model performance. ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis show that on retrospective data, individual ML models can accurately predict BSIs at different stages of patient trajectory. Although they enable early prediction of BSI, a comprehensive approach to integrate data types and models is necessary. Systematic reporting, externally validated, and clinical implementation studies are needed to establish clinical confidence.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Hospital Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients 95%
- A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis 94%
- Accuracy of serological tests for diagnosis of chronic pulmonary aspergillosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identification of predictive patient characteristics for assessing the probability of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality 95%
- Impact of electronic medical records on healthcare delivery in Nigeria: A Review 94%
- External validation of a paediatric SMART triage model for use in resource limited facilities 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Machine Learning Interpretability Methods to Characterize the Importance of Hematologic Biomarkers in Prognosticating Patients with Suspected Infection 95%
- Improving irregular temporal modeling by integrating synthetic data to the electronic medical record using conditional GANs: a case study of fluid overload prediction in the intensive care unit 95%
- Unsupervised Discovery of Risk Profiles on Negative and Positive COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using Automated-Machine Learning to Predict COVID-19 Patient Survival: Identify Influential Biomarkers 95%
- Empirical Sample Size Determination for Popular Classification Algorithms in Clinical Research 93%
- Clinical Characteristics And Prognostic Factors For ICU Admission Of Patients With COVID-19 Using Machine Learning And Natural Language Processing 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.