ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2024
Predicting community acquired bloodstream infection in infants using full blood count parameters and C-reactive protein; a machine learning study.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Models for Predicting Bloodstream Infections in Large Cohorts: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Interleukin-6 as a sepsis biomarker in neonatal and pediatric care: A retrospective real world cohort study.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Deep Learning for the Early Diagnosis of Candidemia.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
- Early detection of bloodstream infection in critically ill children using artificial intelligence.Acute and critical care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early recognition of bloodstream infection (BSI) in infants can be difficult, as symptoms may be non-specific, and culture can take up to 48 h. As a result, many infants receive unneeded antibiotic treatment while awaiting the culture results. In this study, we aimed to develop a model that can reliably identify infants who do not have positive blood cultures (and, by extension, BSI) based on the full blood count (FBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) values. Several models (i.e. multivariable logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, K nearest neighbors, support vector machine, random forest model and decision tree) were trained using FBC and CRP values of 2693 infants aged 7 to 60 days with suspected BSI between 2005 and 2022 in a tertiary paediatric hospital in Dublin, Ireland. All models tested showed similar sensitivities (range 47% - 62%) and specificities (range 85%-95%). A trained decision tree and random forest model were applied to the full dataset and to a dataset containing infants with suspected BSI in 2023 and showed good segregation of a low-risk and high-risk group. Negative predictive values for these two models were high for the full dataset (> 99%) and for the 2023 dataset (> 97%), while positive predictive values were low in both dataset (4%-20%). Conclusion: We identified several models that can predict positive blood cultures in infants with suspected BSI aged 7 to 60 days. Application of these models could prevent administration of antimicrobial treatment and burdensome diagnostics in infants who do not need them. What is Known: • Bloodstream infection (BSI) in infants cause non-specific symptoms and may be difficult to diagnose. • Results of blood cultures can take up to 48 hours. What is New: • Machine learning models can contribute to clinical decision making on BSI in infants while blood culture results are not yet known.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.