| Literature DB >> 26518264 |
Dagmar Chudobova1, Kristyna Cihalova1, Roman Guran1, Simona Dostalova1, Kristyna Smerkova1, Radek Vesely2, Jaromir Gumulec3, Michal Masarik3, Zbynek Heger1, Vojtech Adam1, Rene Kizek4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infections, mostly those associated with colonization of wound by different pathogenic microorganisms, are one of the most serious health complications during a medical treatment. Therefore, this study is focused on the isolation, characterization, and identification of microorganisms prevalent in superficial wounds of patients (n=50) presenting with bacterial infection.Entities:
Keywords: Bacterial strains; MALDI-TOF; Sequencing; Superficial wounds
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26518264 PMCID: PMC9425364 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2015.08.013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Infect Dis ISSN: 1413-8670 Impact factor: 3.257
Fig. 1Representation of microorganism species present in patients’ wounds. Patients were grouped based on infection severity. The graphs show bacterial cultures grown on different selective nutrient media. (A) Infection severity – deep wounds and (B) infection severity – superficial wounds.
Fig. 2Dendrograms from protein mass profiles of microorganisms in different groups based on treatment duration. Created in MALDI Biotyper™. (A) Treatment duration less than four weeks. (B) Treatment duration 4–7 weeks. (C) Treatment duration eight and more weeks. (D) Exitus.
Fig. 3Design and performance of the neuronal networks. (A) Design of classification network for the prediction of time-to-heal. The number of neurons/inputs is indicated by n. *Note the number of input and hidden neurons is not displayed exactly. (B) Training process of the classification network with stopping conditions activated. (C) Accuracy of the final network for classification of time-to-heal. (D) Design of classification network for the prediction of infection severity. (E) Training process for creation of this network with stopping criteria activated. (F) Accuracy of the network for the prediction of infection severity.
Characterization of neuronal network performance for the prediction of patient outcome. Performance displayed in % for training, testing, and validation samples. The number of training cycle for custom network training is displayed in training algorithm column. BFGS, Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno training algorithm; SOS, sum of squares.
| Prediction target | Net. name | Performance | Training algorithm | Error function | Activation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training | Testing | Validation | Train | |||||
| Infection severity | MLP 89-19-2 | 100.00 | 85.71 | 85.71 | BFGS 24 | Infection severity | MLP 89-19-2 | 100.00 |
| Time-to-heal | MLP 89-13-3 | 91.43 | 85.71 | 71.43 | BFGS 17 | Time-to-heal | MLP 89-13-3 | 91.43 |
Performance of the network: verification of the test and validation cohort. Analysis for both networks for prediction of infection severity and time-to-heal. Test cohort was employed for stopping conditions. Validation sample was used to test final network. “target” indicates input data, network output reflects calculated result from the neuronal network. id, identification of patient; w, week.
| Sample | ID | Case weights | Infection severity | Time-to-heal | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Network output | Accuracy | Conf. level | Target | Network output | Accuracy | Conf. level | |||
| Test | 2 | 1.71 | Superficial | Superficial | Correct | 1.00 | <4 w | <4 w | Correct | 0.40 |
| 6 | 1.81 | Deep | Deep | Correct | 1.00 | >8 w | <4 w | Incorrect | 0.47 | |
| 8 | 1.65 | Superficial | Superficial | Correct | 1.00 | <4 w | <4 w | Correct | 0.36 | |
| 22 | 2.00 | Superficial | Superficial | Correct | 1.00 | >8 w | >8 w | Correct | 0.41 | |
| 38 | 2.06 | Deep | Superficial | Incorrect | 1.00 | <4 w | <4 w | Correct | 0.49 | |
| 39 | 2.01 | Deep | Deep | Correct | 1.00 | <4 w | <4 w | Correct | 0.56 | |
| 40 | 2.12 | Superficial | Superficial | Correct | 1.00 | <4 w | <4 w | Correct | 0.43 | |
| Validation | 7 | 1.68 | Superficial | Deep | Incorrect | 1.00 | <4 w | <4 w | Correct | 0.40 |
| 23 | 1.62 | Superficial | Superficial | Correct | 1.00 | >8 w | >8 w | Correct | 0.49 | |
| 27 | 2.23 | Deep | Deep | Correct | 0.87 | 4–7 w | <4 w | Incorrect | 0.58 | |
| 28 | 2.11 | Superficial | Superficial | Correct | 1.00 | <4 w | <4 w | Correct | 0.47 | |
| 36 | 2.27 | Deep | Deep | Correct | 1.00 | 4–7 w | 4–7 w | Correct | 0.63 | |
| 45 | 1.88 | Deep | Deep | Correct | 1.00 | <4 w | <4 w | Correct | 0.43 | |
| 49 | 2.25 | Deep | Deep | Correct | 1.00 | 4–7 w | <4 w | Incorrect | 0.56 | |
Fig. 4Sensitivity analysis of all factors for prediction of time-to-heal and infection severity. Sensitivity of individual factors depicted as a percentage of total sensitivity. (A) Sensitivity of individual factors for the prediction of time-to-heal. (B) Sensitivity of individual factors for the prediction of infection severity.