Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
急诊科血培养的诊断管理：机器学习预测工具的多中心验证和前瞻性评估 - PubMed
Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Article summary:
1. This article discusses the development and validation of a machine learning model to predict blood culture outcomes in emergency departments.
2. The model was trained on data from the VU Medical Center (VUMC) and validated in three other medical centers, with real-time prospective evaluation in VUMC.
3. The model had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.81 and was able to identify patients at low risk for positive blood cultures, potentially reducing the number of unnecessary blood culture analyses.
Article analysis:
This article provides a detailed overview of the development and validation of a machine learning model to predict blood culture outcomes in emergency departments. The authors provide evidence that their model is accurate and reliable, with an AUROC of 0.81 in the VUMC test set, 0.80 in AMC, 0.76 in ZMC, and 0.75 in BIDMC during external validation, as well as 76% accuracy during real-time prospective evaluation in VUMC. The authors also provide evidence that their model can be used to safely reduce the number of unnecessary blood culture analyses by identifying patients at low risk for positive results.
The article appears to be trustworthy and reliable overall; however, there are some potential biases that should be noted. First, all data used for training and validating the model were collected from four medical centers located in Europe and North America; thus, it is unclear whether this model would be applicable or accurate when applied to other populations or settings outside these regions. Additionally, while the authors note that their study was funded by Amsterdam Public Health - Care Quality Program and Dutch project “Doen of Laten” (project number: 839205002), they do not mention any potential conflicts of interest related to this funding source or any other sources involved with this research project; thus, it is possible that there may be some bias present due to undisclosed financial interests or incentives related to this research project or its results. Finally, while the authors discuss potential risks associated with false-positive culture results due to overuse of BC testing in EDs, they do not discuss any potential risks associated with false-negative results due to underuse of BC testing; thus, it is important for readers to consider both sides when evaluating this research study's findings and implications for clinical practice.