Back

Comparison of OneChoice(R) AI-based clinical decision support recommendations with infectious disease specialists and non-specialists for bacteremia treatment in Lima, Peru

Gomez de la Torre, J. C.; Frenkel, A.; Chavez-Lencinas, C.; Rendon, A.; Fabian, M.; Caceres, J.; Hueda-Zavaleta, M.

2025-08-17 infectious diseases
10.1101/2025.08.15.25333753 medRxiv
Show abstract

Bacteremia is a major contributor to global morbidity and mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where diagnostic delays and empirical antimicrobial misuse exacerbate resistance. This study assessed the accuracy of OneChoice(R), an artificial intelligence (AI)-based Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS), in guiding antimicrobial therapy for bloodstream infections (BSIs) in Lima, Peru. A retrospective, observational design was used, comparing therapeutic recommendations generated by OneChoice(R)--based on molecular (FilmArray(R)) and phenotypic (MALDI-TOF MS, VITEK2) data--with the clinical decisions of 94 physicians (35 infectious disease [ID] specialists and 59 non-specialists) across 366 survey-based evaluations of bacteremia cases. Concordance between CDSS and physician decisions was analyzed using Cohens Kappa and logistic regression. The overall concordance rate was 96.14% when considering any suggested treatment, and 74.59% for the top recommendation, with a substantial agreement ({kappa} = 0.70). ID specialists showed significantly higher concordance ({kappa} = 0.78) than non-ID physicians ({kappa} = 0.61), and specialization was the strongest predictor of agreement (OR = 2.26, p = 0.001). Escherichia coli cases had the highest concordance, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed the lowest. The CDSS reduced inappropriate antibiotic use, particularly unnecessary carbapenem prescriptions. These findings support the utility of AI-CDSS tools in enhancing antimicrobial stewardship and standardizing care, especially in resource-limited healthcare settings.

Published in PLOS ONE (predicted rank #2) · training set

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.