ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Deep learning analysis of 12-lead electrocardiograms for bloodstream infection prediction: a multi-center validation study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrompt diagnosis of bloodstream infections (BSIs) is critical for antimicrobial stewardship but hindered by blood culture delays of 48 h or more. We developed and validated a deep learning model to predict BSI risk from standard 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs).
methodsThis study adhered to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. In this retrospective, multi-center study, we trained a deep learning model to predict clinically significant BSIs (excluding common contaminants) using ECGs from adult emergency department (ED) patients at an academic medical center in Taiwan (April 2012 to March 2022; total N = 163,826) and validated it in three independent cohorts: internal (n = 22,205), external (n = 22,709), and MIMIC-IV (n = 66,937). For the MIMIC-IV cohort, BSI was identified using the derived suspicion of infection framework with a positive blood culture flag.
resultsThe model achieved AUCs of 0.821 (95% CI 0.804-0.838), 0.800 (0.782-0.818), and 0.756 (0.743-0.768) across the three test cohorts, respectively. At a high-sensitivity rule-out threshold the model classified 19-25% of patients as low risk (negative predictive value [NPV] 99.8%); at the Youden point, the sensitivity and specificity were 73.2% and 76.8% in the internal test set, with an NPV of 99.2%. The model showed superior discrimination compared with XGBoost and logistic regression baselines. Decision-curve analysis showed net benefit over heart rate alone and the default treat-all and treat-none strategies across the clinically relevant low-threshold range. Exploratory analyses indicated that the ECG-derived risk signal was elevated across Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and fungal infections; pathogen-specific prediction will require a dedicated model (Supplementary Figure S3). The primary model stratified 90-day mortality risk among infected patients (adjusted HR 3.43 [1.93-6.09] for high- vs. low-risk).
conclusionsDeep learning analysis of standard 12-lead ECGs obtained at ED triage can predict clinically significant BSI with discrimination superior to conventional ECG parameters. The model discriminated best (highest AUC) in patients with low clinical suspicion (qSOFA = 0), although its incremental value in this low-prevalence subgroup is modest. Prospective validation is needed before clinical implementation.
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.