Back

Development and external validation of a multivariable regression model for bacteraemia in adults presenting to emergency departments

Samuels, T. H.; Forrest-Hammond, R.; Stockford, C.; Harris, S. K.; Eyre, D. W.; Gupta, R. K.; Noursadeghi, M.

2026-07-19 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.07.17.26358264 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Bacteraemia is associated with poor outcomes but the diagnostic gold standard, peripheral blood culture, takes up to 24 hours to become clinically actionable, hampering early management decisions in suspected infection. Single predictors and existing sepsis risk scores discriminate poorly, and few multivariable bacteraemia models have been adequately validated in UK populations. Methods: We developed a logistic regression model, using backwards AIC based selection of predefined candidate predictors routinely available within hours of hospital attendance, in a retrospective cohort of 33,874 hospital encounters at University College London Hospitals (UCLH) between 2019 and 2024. Continuous predictors were modelled using restricted cubic splines and missing data handled using multiple imputation. Model performance was assessed via internal external cross validation and prediction instability analysis, before temporal validation in held-out 2024 UCLH data and external validation in 53,669 hospital encounters from the Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database (IORD). Results: Bacteraemia occurred in 5.2% of UCLH and 8.9% of IORD encounters, respectively. Twenty predictors were retained, spanning demographics, comorbidities, vital signs and blood tests. Discrimination was stable across development time periods (pooled c-statistic 0.82, 95%CI 0.81 to 0.84) and was maintained in temporal (0.83, 0.79 to 0.87) and external validation (0.83, 0.82 to 0.83), with excellent calibration in external validation (calibration slope 1.08 (1.05 to 1.11); calibration-in-the-large 0.01 (-0.02 to 0.04)). The model outperformed single predictors, established risk scores, and a reconstructed comparator model, and showed superior net benefit in decision curve analysis. Performance was consistent across age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic subgroups but degraded when blood cultures were sampled more than six hours after attendance and varied by likely infection site. Conclusions: This model accurately predicts bacteraemia using routinely collected data available within hours of hospital attendance, with performance maintained in a large, independent external validation cohort. It offers a generalisable, clinically interpretable tool to support early decision-making in suspected infection, pending further work to establish optimal implementation thresholds.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 17%
11.1%
2
Journal of Infection
78 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.8%
3
Wellcome Open Research
67 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
4
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.5%
5
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.9%
6
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.1%
7
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.1%
8
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 9%
3.4%
50% of probability mass above
9
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
202 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.3%
10
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.8%
11
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Nature Microbiology
155 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
142 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
American Journal of Epidemiology
67 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
15
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
17
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
18
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
19
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
46 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
20
The Lancet Microbe
44 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
21
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
22
Epidemiology and Infection
89 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
23
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
24
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
25
Microbial Genomics
225 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.8%
27
Eurosurveillance
83 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
28
Emergency Medicine Journal
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
29
Public Health
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%