N Peiffer-Smadja1, T M Rawson2, R Ahmad2, A Buchard3, P Georgiou4, F-X Lescure5, G Birgand2, A H Holmes2. 1. National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, UK; French Institute for Medical Research (Inserm), Infection Antimicrobials Modelling Evolution (IAME), UMR 1137, University Paris Diderot, Paris, France. Electronic address: n.peiffer-smadja@ic.ac.uk. 2. National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Babylon Health, London, UK. 4. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK. 5. French Institute for Medical Research (Inserm), Infection Antimicrobials Modelling Evolution (IAME), UMR 1137, University Paris Diderot, Paris, France; Infectious Diseases Department, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) is a growing field in medicine. This narrative review describes the current body of literature on ML for clinical decision support in infectious diseases (ID). OBJECTIVES: We aim to inform clinicians about the use of ML for diagnosis, classification, outcome prediction and antimicrobial management in ID. SOURCES: References for this review were identified through searches of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, biorXiv, ACM Digital Library, arXiV and IEEE Xplore Digital Library up to July 2019. CONTENT: We found 60 unique ML-clinical decision support systems (ML-CDSS) aiming to assist ID clinicians. Overall, 37 (62%) focused on bacterial infections, 10 (17%) on viral infections, nine (15%) on tuberculosis and four (7%) on any kind of infection. Among them, 20 (33%) addressed the diagnosis of infection, 18 (30%) the prediction, early detection or stratification of sepsis, 13 (22%) the prediction of treatment response, four (7%) the prediction of antibiotic resistance, three (5%) the choice of antibiotic regimen and two (3%) the choice of a combination antiretroviral therapy. The ML-CDSS were developed for intensive care units (n = 24, 40%), ID consultation (n = 15, 25%), medical or surgical wards (n = 13, 20%), emergency department (n = 4, 7%), primary care (n = 3, 5%) and antimicrobial stewardship (n = 1, 2%). Fifty-three ML-CDSS (88%) were developed using data from high-income countries and seven (12%) with data from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The evaluation of ML-CDSS was limited to measures of performance (e.g. sensitivity, specificity) for 57 ML-CDSS (95%) and included data in clinical practice for three (5%). IMPLICATIONS: Considering comprehensive patient data from socioeconomically diverse healthcare settings, including primary care and LMICs, may improve the ability of ML-CDSS to suggest decisions adapted to various clinical contexts. Currents gaps identified in the evaluation of ML-CDSS must also be addressed in order to know the potential impact of such tools for clinicians and patients.
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) is a growing field in medicine. This narrative review describes the current body of literature on ML for clinical decision support in infectious diseases (ID). OBJECTIVES: We aim to inform clinicians about the use of ML for diagnosis, classification, outcome prediction and antimicrobial management in ID. SOURCES: References for this review were identified through searches of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, biorXiv, ACM Digital Library, arXiV and IEEE Xplore Digital Library up to July 2019. CONTENT: We found 60 unique ML-clinical decision support systems (ML-CDSS) aiming to assist ID clinicians. Overall, 37 (62%) focused on bacterial infections, 10 (17%) on viral infections, nine (15%) on tuberculosis and four (7%) on any kind of infection. Among them, 20 (33%) addressed the diagnosis of infection, 18 (30%) the prediction, early detection or stratification of sepsis, 13 (22%) the prediction of treatment response, four (7%) the prediction of antibiotic resistance, three (5%) the choice of antibiotic regimen and two (3%) the choice of a combination antiretroviral therapy. The ML-CDSS were developed for intensive care units (n = 24, 40%), ID consultation (n = 15, 25%), medical or surgical wards (n = 13, 20%), emergency department (n = 4, 7%), primary care (n = 3, 5%) and antimicrobial stewardship (n = 1, 2%). Fifty-three ML-CDSS (88%) were developed using data from high-income countries and seven (12%) with data from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The evaluation of ML-CDSS was limited to measures of performance (e.g. sensitivity, specificity) for 57 ML-CDSS (95%) and included data in clinical practice for three (5%). IMPLICATIONS: Considering comprehensive patient data from socioeconomically diverse healthcare settings, including primary care and LMICs, may improve the ability of ML-CDSS to suggest decisions adapted to various clinical contexts. Currents gaps identified in the evaluation of ML-CDSS must also be addressed in order to know the potential impact of such tools for clinicians and patients.
Authors: Lisa M Mayer; Jeffrey R Strich; Sameer S Kadri; Michail S Lionakis; Nicholas G Evans; D Rebecca Prevots; Emily E Ricotta Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 4.423
Authors: Katharina Last; Nicholas R Power; Sarah Dellière; Petar Velikov; Anja Šterbenc; Ivana Antal Antunovic; Maria João Lopes; Valentijn Schweitzer; Aleksandra Barac Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 8.067