2018
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dky514
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Supervised machine learning for the prediction of infection on admission to hospital: a prospective observational cohort study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One study described a ML-CDSS trained to diagnose bacterial infection using six routinely available blood parameters with data from 160 203 individuals and its use in a prospective observational cohort. Among 104 patients included, the ML-CDSS predicted a bacterial infection in three individuals who were not identified by clinicians as having an infection on admission but were diagnosed later with a bacterial infection [58].…”
Section: Diagnosis Of Infectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One study described a ML-CDSS trained to diagnose bacterial infection using six routinely available blood parameters with data from 160 203 individuals and its use in a prospective observational cohort. Among 104 patients included, the ML-CDSS predicted a bacterial infection in three individuals who were not identified by clinicians as having an infection on admission but were diagnosed later with a bacterial infection [58].…”
Section: Diagnosis Of Infectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data analysis driven by ML is a quite new approach in medical care and complementary diagnosis (Heinrichs and Eickhoff 2020 ; Sidey-Gibbons and Sidey-Gibbons 2019 ; Watson et al 2019 ); however, in the last years, several studies have reported the use of ML with image data or clinical specimens (blood, stool, urine) to help in diagnose cancer (Kourou et al 2015 ; Podnar et al 2019 ; Salod and Singh 2019 ; Wu et al 2019 ), diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Dinh et al 2019 ; Kavakiotis et al 2017 ; Shameer et al 2018 ) among other conditions (Ayling et al 2019 ; Gunčar et al 2018 ; Poostchi et al 2018 ; Ullah et al 2019 ). Considering the infective diseases, ML techniques were used to identify dengue (Hair et al 2019 ), bacterial infections (Rawson et al 2019 ) and, more recently, COVID-19 (Banerjee et al 2020 ; Brinati et al 2020 ). These studies employed mostly Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes and SVM as learners and included basic blood sample data in their analysis (hematologic data, CRP, alanine and aspartate aminotransferases, among others).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…transformation to binary variables indicating missingness [22], carryforward of last observation [12,14,20,23e26], including complete cases only [18,27e30], or applying multiple imputation [11,17,31e35]. Two studies assessed the effect of missing data on model performance through a stepwise introduction of missing variables [36,37]. Class imbalance of the labelled outcome variable was explicitly mentioned if applicable in 39% (n ¼ 18) of the studies.…”
Section: Data Underlying Identified Machine Learning Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is particularly worrisome not only because of the debate on reproducibility [70] but also as ML tools are often being criticized as black boxes. The maintainers of the public MIMIC data repository lead the way in providing open source code "Pre-determined clinical case definition" (original quote from the authors) [36] "Any type of infection"; positive microbiological culture (original quote from the authors)…”
Section: Reporting Standardsmentioning
confidence: 99%