Dataset Information

Neither Single nor a Combination of Routine Laboratory Parameters can Discriminate between Gram-positive and Gram-negative Bacteremia.

ABSTRACT: Adequate early empiric antibiotic therapy is pivotal for the outcome of patients with bloodstream infections. In clinical practice the use of surrogate laboratory parameters is frequently proposed to predict underlying bacterial pathogens; however there is no clear evidence for this assumption. In this study, we investigated the discriminatory capacity of predictive models consisting of routinely available laboratory parameters to predict the presence of Gram-positive or Gram-negative bacteremia. Major machine learning algorithms were screened for their capacity to maximize the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) for discriminating between Gram-positive and Gram-negative cases. Data from 23,765 patients with clinically suspected bacteremia were screened and 1,180 bacteremic patients were included in the study. A relative predominance of Gram-negative bacteremia (54.0%), which was more pronounced in females (59.1%), was observed. The final model achieved 0.675 ROC-AUC resulting in 44.57% sensitivity and 79.75% specificity. Various parameters presented a significant difference between both genders. In gender-specific models, the discriminatory potency was slightly improved. The results of this study do not support the use of surrogate laboratory parameters for predicting classes of causative pathogens. In this patient cohort, gender-specific differences in various laboratory parameters were observed, indicating differences in the host response between genders.

SUBMITTER: Ratzinger F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4629184 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Neither Single nor a Combination of Routine Laboratory Parameters can Discriminate between Gram-positive and Gram-negative Bacteremia.

Ratzinger Franz F Dedeyan Michel M Rammerstorfer Matthias M Perkmann Thomas T Burgmann Heinz H Makristathis Athanasios A Dorffner Georg G Loetsch Felix F Blacky Alexander A Ramharter Michael M

Scientific reports 20151102

Adequate early empiric antibiotic therapy is pivotal for the outcome of patients with bloodstream infections. In clinical practice the use of surrogate laboratory parameters is frequently proposed to predict underlying bacterial pathogens; however there is no clear evidence for this assumption. In this study, we investigated the discriminatory capacity of predictive models consisting of routinely available laboratory parameters to predict the presence of Gram-positive or Gram-negative bacteremia ...[more]

PMID: 26522966

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBacterial bloodstream infection is responsible for the majority of cases of sepsis and septic shock. Early recognition of the causative pathogen is pivotal for administration of adequate empiric antibiotic therapy and for the survival of the patients. In this study, we developed a feasible machine learning (ML) model to predict gram-positive and gram-negative bacteremia based on routine laboratory parameters.MethodsData for 2118 patients with bacteremia were obtained from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care dataset. Patients were randomly split into the training set and test set by stratified sampling, and 374 routine laboratory blood test variables were retrieved. Variables with missing values in more than 40% of the patients were excluded. Pearson correlation test was employed to eliminate redundant features. Five ML algorithms were used to build the model based on the selected features. Additionally, 132 patients with bacteremia who were treated at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University were included in an independent test cohort to evaluate the model.ResultsAfter feature selection, 32 variables remained. All the five ML algorithms performed well in terms of discriminating between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteremia, but the performance of convolutional neural network (CNN) and random forest (RF) were better than other three algorithms. Consider of the interpretability of models, RF was chosen for further test (ROC-AUC = 0.768; 95%CI = 0.715-0.798, with a sensitivity of 75.20% and a specificity of 63.79%). To expand the application of the model, a decision tree (DT) was built utilizing the major variables, and it achieved an AUC of 0.679 (95%CI = 0.632-0.723), a sensitivity of 66%, and a specificity of 67.82% in the test cohort. When tested in the Qilu Hospital cohort, the ROC-AUC of the RF and DT models were 0.666 (95%CI = 0.579-0.746) and 0.615 (95%CI = 0.526-0.698), respectively. Finally, a software was developed to make the RF- and DT-based prediction models easily accessible.ConclusionThe present ML-based models could effectively discriminate between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteremia based on routine laboratory blood test results. This simple model would be beneficial in terms of guiding timely antibiotic selection and administration in critically ill patients with bacteremia before their pathogen test results are available.

Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.

Dataset Information

Neither Single nor a Combination of Routine Laboratory Parameters can Discriminate between Gram-positive and Gram-negative Bacteremia.

Publications

Neither Single nor a Combination of Routine Laboratory Parameters can Discriminate between Gram-positive and Gram-negative Bacteremia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets