Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

A Risk Prediction Model for Screening Bacteremic Patients: A Cross Sectional Study

  • Franz Ratzinger,

    Affiliation Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Medical and Chemical Laboratory Diagnostics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

  • Michel Dedeyan,

    Affiliation Department of Medicine I, Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

  • Matthias Rammerstorfer,

    Affiliation Department of Medicine I, Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

  • Thomas Perkmann,

    Affiliation Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Medical and Chemical Laboratory Diagnostics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

  • Heinz Burgmann,

    Affiliation Department of Medicine I, Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

  • Athanasios Makristathis,

    Affiliation Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical Microbiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

  • Georg Dorffner,

    Affiliation Section for Artificial Intelligence, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

  • Felix Lötsch,

    Affiliation Department of Medicine I, Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

  • Alexander Blacky,

    Affiliation Clinical Institute for Hospital Hygiene, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

  • Michael Ramharter

    michael.ramharter@meduniwien.ac.at

    Affiliations Department of Medicine I, Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria, Institut für Tropenmedizin, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

A Risk Prediction Model for Screening Bacteremic Patients: A Cross Sectional Study

  • Franz Ratzinger, 
  • Michel Dedeyan, 
  • Matthias Rammerstorfer, 
  • Thomas Perkmann, 
  • Heinz Burgmann, 
  • Athanasios Makristathis, 
  • Georg Dorffner, 
  • Felix Lötsch, 
  • Alexander Blacky, 
  • Michael Ramharter
PLOS
x

Abstract

Background

Bacteraemia is a frequent and severe condition with a high mortality rate. Despite profound knowledge about the pre-test probability of bacteraemia, blood culture analysis often results in low rates of pathogen detection and therefore increasing diagnostic costs. To improve the cost-effectiveness of blood culture sampling, we computed a risk prediction model based on highly standardizable variables, with the ultimate goal to identify via an automated decision support tool patients with very low risk for bacteraemia.

Methods

In this retrospective hospital-wide cohort study evaluating 15,985 patients with suspected bacteraemia, 51 variables were assessed for their diagnostic potency. A derivation cohort (n = 14.699) was used for feature and model selection as well as for cut-off specification. Models were established using the A2DE classifier, a supervised Bayesian classifier. Two internally validated models were further evaluated by a validation cohort (n = 1,286).

Results

The proportion of neutrophile leukocytes in differential blood count was the best individual variable to predict bacteraemia (ROC-AUC: 0.694). Applying the A2DE classifier, two models, model 1 (20 variables) and model 2 (10 variables) were established with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.767 and 0.759, respectively. In the validation cohort, ROC-AUCs of 0.800 and 0.786 were achieved. Using predefined cut-off points, 16% and 12% of patients were allocated to the low risk group with a negative predictive value of more than 98.8%.

Conclusion

Applying the proposed models, more than ten percent of patients with suspected blood stream infection were identified having minimal risk for bacteraemia. Based on these data the application of this model as an automated decision support tool for physicians is conceivable leading to a potential increase in the cost-effectiveness of blood culture sampling. External prospective validation of the model's generalizability is needed for further appreciation of the usefulness of this tool.

Background

Bacteraemia is a frequent and severe condition with an annualized incidence of 122 per 100.000 people. The mortality rate ranges between 14% and 37% [1][3]. Risk factors for bacteraemia are advanced patient's age, urinary or indwelling vascular catheter, fulfilment of two or more SIRS criteria, impaired renal or liver function, malignancy or other chronic co-morbidities [4][8]. Although blood culture analysis is considered the gold standard for diagnosing bacteraemia in patients with suspected blood stream infection, the clinical decision of when to take a blood culture is not trivial. Despite profound knowledge about the pre-test probability of positive blood culture results, which is strongly influenced by the site of infection, true positive rates identifying a causative pathogen are in a low range when consecutively assessed (4.1%–7%) [9][11]. Compared to the true positive rate, false positive results due to contamination are in a similar or even in a higher range, varying between 0.6% to over 8% [11][13]. Importantly, these imperfections of blood culture analysis have an important economic impact, resulting in a 20% increase of total hospital costs for patients with false positive blood cultures [14][17]. Economic analyses estimate the costs related to a single false positive blood culture result between $6,878 and $7,502 per case [17][19].

To increase the cost effectiveness of blood culture analysis, the identification of targeted patient cohorts is therefore highly needed. Several prediction systems for bacteraemia in special patient cohorts have been published with ROC-AUCs in a moderate range [20][24]. However, physicians are arguably inefficient in applying a multitude of available prediction scores for specific conditions and specific patient cohorts [25], [26]. The aim of the current study was therefore to establish a machine learning based prediction system for inpatients and outpatients with suspected bacteraemia using highly standardized and routinely available laboratory parameters to identify those patients for whom blood culture sampling may safely be omitted due to very low pre-test probability for bacteraemia.

Material and Methods

Study Design and Data Collection

The current study was designed as a retrospective cohort study, including inpatients and outpatients at the Vienna General Hospital, Austria, a 2,116-bed tertiary teaching facility. Between January 2006 and December 2010, patients with the clinical suspicion to suffer from bacteraemia were included if blood culture analysis was requested by the responsible physician and blood was sampled for assessment of haematology and biochemistry. Patients younger than 18 years and patients with unavailable laboratory parameter results were excluded. Patients with a potential blood culture contaminant and those with missing or inaccurate identification to the species level were excluded from further analysis. Blood culture contamination was defined according to the criteria of Hall and Lyman [27]. Furthermore, patients with rare blood culture isolates (less than 0.15% frequency of positives) were also excluded. Patients'age, gender and 49 laboratory parameters (see table 1) were used in the analysis. All laboratory parameters had been assessed in accordance to parameter specific SOPs at the Clinical Department of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University Vienna, an ISO 9001:2008 certified and ISO 15189:2008 accredited facility. Anonymous raw data can be request by contacting the corresponding author. Following national regulations each request will be evaluated for approval by the local human data safety commission.

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee of the Medical University Vienna (EC-Nr.: 333/2011) and conducted in accordance to the Declaration of Helsinki (1965, including current revisions), the rules of Good Clinical Practice (GCP, European Union) and the standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD). Since a retrospective study design was applied, informed consent was not sought from study participants. To assure anonymity, every study participant was assigned a consecutive identification number, which was exclusively used for further analysis.

Evaluation method

The data set was divided into a derivation set (Jan 1, 2006 to Jul 31, 2010) and a validation set (Aug 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2010) based on the date of inclusion. For feature selection and model training the derivation set was used. Feature selection and internal validation of the trained model was performed using a 10 fold cross validation scheme. Results of the internal validation were taken to set cut-off points for risk stratification of the study population. The Youden index method was applied to set optimal cut-off points [28], [29]. Using likelihood ratios (LR; LR:0.12, LR+:4.93, see figure S1) of corresponding cut-off values, three strata were established to group the patients into a low risk, intermediate risk and high risk group. For the low risk group a cut-off point for the classification probability was set to yield 1% post-test probability for bacteraemia. For the high risk group, a cut-off point resulting in more than 30% post-test probability was predefined. Classification probabilities between these defined cut off points were allocated to the intermediate risk group. To externally validate the discriminatory potency of the previously trained algorithm and risk strata, the validation set was used.

Statistical Analysis

For statistical analysis, WEKA (Version 3.7.10, GNU General Public License) and R (Version 3.0.2, GNU General Public License) were used [30]. Descriptive statistics of all variables indicated are given as median and interquartile range. For single variable analysis, the Mann-Whitney U-test, Pearson's chi-squared test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) analysis of individual variables were applied [31]. To train the multivariable models, variables with a high discriminative power were selected, using the wrapper subset evaluator algorithm and the correlation feature selection (CFS) subset evaluator of WEKA. The wrapper approach aims at selecting a relevant set of variables for a specific classification algorithm (in our case the A2DE algorithm, see below) [32]. The CFS subset evaluator evaluates the discriminatory power of a variable subset with respect to their inter-correlation to each other [33]. Furthermore, the effect of each variable was evaluated by a step-wise deletion of variables in the order of their individual Pearson's correlation coefficient with respect to the outcome.

For statistical modelling, several major groups of supervised machine learning algorithms were applied, including Bayesian classifiers such as Naïve Bayes, artificial neural networks such as multilayer perceptrons, or support vector machines. The best results were consistently achieved with the averaged 2-dependence estimators (A2DE) algorithm. The A2DE, belonging to the averaging n-dependence estimator classifier group, is a semi-Naïve Bayes method [34]. This group of algorithms assumes that each predicting variable depends on the outcome-class and n other variables. In case of the A2DE classifier, n equals two, whereas the classic Naïve Bayes algorithm is a zero-dependence estimator, assuming that all variables are conditionally independent from each other [35], [36]. In many real-world applications, this independence assumption is violated, leading to inadequate results. The Naïve Bayes algorithm requires a two dimensional table (outcome class and predicting variable) for indexing the probability estimates. In contrast, the A2DE requires two additional dimensions for the estimation of the two additional variable dependencies. Further, these classifiers aggregate the predictions made by a collection of n-dependence estimators [37]. These procedures decrease the bias but slightly increase the model's variance [38]. However, comprehensive experimental evaluations indicate that the A2DE's trade-off between bias and variance results in a good predictive accuracy for many applications and data sets [39][41].

For ROC-curve comparison, a paired t-test (comparison of paired cross validation folds), the DeLong test or the Hanely and McNeil comparison test were applied to values of the ROC-AUC [42]–. Furthermore, 95% confidence intervals of performance measures, including sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) or positive predictive value (PPV), were calculated with bootstrapping (2,000 iterations) [45]. Where appropriate, the Bonferroni-Holm method was used to control for type I errors, related to multiple testing. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.

Results

Study population

Between January 2006 and December 2010, blood culture analysis was requested for 23,765 patients. Figure 1 presents the selection process of patients. Patients less than 18 years old (n = 3,879), patients with unavailable laboratory parameter results (n = 3,389), patients with blood culture contamination, patients with blood culture results having missing or inaccurate identification to the species level and fungal growth (n = 464) and patients with rare blood culture isolates (n = 48) were excluded from analysis. The final study population consisted of 15,985 patients. Among them, 1,286 patients (8%) had a positive blood culture result. Most prevalent bacteria were E. coli (n = 406, 31.5%), S. aureus (n = 297, 23.1%), and K. pneumonie (n = 83, 6.5%). Patient characteristics are presented in Table 1. According to a predefined temporal criterion (cut-off date: Aug 1, 2010), the data set was divided into a derivation set (n = 14,691, 8% bacteraemia) and a validation set (n = 1,294, 8.2% bacteraemia).

thumbnail
Figure 1. Selection process of the study population.

1unavailability of laboratory variables, 2Contaminations or fungal growth, 3blood culture results with less than 0.001% frequency, 4study patients treated between Jan 1, 2006 and Jul 31, 2010, 5study patients treated between Aug 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2010.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106765.g001

Feature selection and model training

Among 51 available variables in the derivation set, 40 variables resulted in a statistically significant difference between bacteraemia and non-bacteraemia patients. The best individual discriminatory variable was the proportion of neutrophil leukocytes in differential blood count (p<0.0001) with an ROC-AUC of 0.694 (CI: 0.686–0.702). At the Youden Index cut-off point, the relative amount of neutrophils resulted in 61.95% (59.1%–64.7%) sensitivity and 67.6% specificity (66.8%–68.4%), respectively. Among all variables, 20 variables were selected by the wrapper approach (model 1), which were further evaluated by the CFS subset evaluator (model 2). Finally, model 2 consisted of ten variables, including patient's age, proportion of neutrophils, monocytes (absolute and relative value), eosinophils (absolute value), lymphocytes (absolute value), sodium, C-reactive protein, creatinine and total bilirubin (Table 2). Also other feature selection steps were evaluated, resulting in models with lower ROC-AUCs than described below.

A number of applicable classes of supervised machine learning techniques including artificial neural networks and support vector machines were screened in the model selection process. Figure S2 presents ROC-curves of various classifiers. The best results in ROC curve analysis were achieved by applying the A2DE classifier yielding an ROC-AUC of 0.767 (CI: 0.754–0.781) in model 1, and of 0.759 (CI: 0.745–0.773) in model 2, respectively. This classifier is conceptually simpler than other algorithms available, and presented constantly better results in ROC-AUC analysis than other classifier tested. Generally, the models'calibration appears to be good. Calibration plots are shown in figure S3. Model 1 shows a modest risk for overestimation for patients at higher bacteraemia risk. This overestimation effect is not seen in model 2, which therefore appears to be very well calibrated.

Using the Youden Index method to set an optimal cut-off point, model 1 yielded 72.1% sensitivity and 70.3% specificity with 17.3% PPV and 96.7% NPV. Model 2 yielded 67.7% sensitivity and 72.8% specificity with 17.8% PPV and 96.7% NPV. Different cut-off points were used to establish a low risk, an intermediate risk and a high risk group for bacteraemia. Table 3 summarizes diagnostic prediction measures when using different cut-off points. Importantly, the low risk group demonstrates a NPV of 98.84 (model 1) and 99.14 (model 2), respectively.

thumbnail
Table 3. Results of the models'diagnostic performances at predefined cut-off points.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106765.t003

Effects of feature reduction and missing values

To estimate the effect of omitting variables with low predictive power, variables of model 1 were ranked according to their individual Pearson correlation coefficient against the outcome variable and deleted step by step in that order. The majority of deletion steps led to a significant decrease of the ROC-AUC. Figure 2 summarizes this deletion procedure.

thumbnail
Figure 2. ROC-AUCs assessed in relation to the number of variables used.

Variables are ranked according to their individual correlation coefficient with respect to the outcome; significant decrease of the ROC-AUC is seen when more than one variable is deleted.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106765.g002

Due to its retrospective study design, some variables were not available for all patients (Table 2). For most variables less than 10% missing values were observed with the exception of cholesterol (34% missing values), amylase (27%), creatinine kinases (14%) and magnesium (13%). When replacing missing values with the mean value of the corresponding group (“value imputation”), no significant difference in ROC-AUCs were detected (model 1: ROC-AUC = 0.77, p = 0.85; model2: ROC-AUC = 0.76, p = 0.09).

Validation set

To test the generalizability of the established models, a validation set (n = 1,294) was used. Model 1 achieves an ROC- AUC of 0.80 (CI: 0.76–0.84, see figure S4). Model 2 yields an ROC-AUC of 0.79 (CI: 0.74–0.83). No significant differences were found between ROC-AUCs derived from the validation set and the corresponding ROC-AUCs derived from the derivation set (model 1: p = 0.1542, model 2: p = 0.2594).

When applying the cut-offs point predefined by the Youden index method in the derivation cohort, model 1 yields a sensitivity of 79.3% and a specificity of 68.4% with 18.4% PPV and 97.4% NPV. Model 2 achieved a sensitivity of 80.2% and a specificity of 70.0% with 19.3% PPV and 97.5% NPV. Using the predefined cut-off points for the risk model, 16% of the patients (n = 202) were allocated to the low risk group and 7% (n = 89) to the high risk group, respectively. Among the patients in the low risk group, only 2 patients were false negatives. Similarly, applying model 2, 157 patients (12%) were allocated to the low risk group with 3 false negatives. Details of the risk model are provided in table 2 while figure 3 represents a tree-based graphical representation of the prediction outcome.

thumbnail
Figure 3. Graphical result of the validation cohort.

model 1: 16% low risk cohort with 2 false negative patients; model 2: 12% low risk cohort with 3 false negative patients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106765.g003

Discussion

The goal of the current study was to assess the discriminatory power of machine learning models with frequently requested variables for predicting negative blood culture results in inpatients and outpatients with a suspicion to suffer from bacteraemia. The cost effectiveness of blood culture analysis very much depends on the diagnostic yield and therefore an automated tool improving the selection of patients may therefore increase cost-effectiveness. Several scoring systems predicting the probability of a positive blood culture result in a specific patient cohort have been published previously [20], [21], [46][48]. However, since these scores necessitate the manual calculation by the physician, these are often not applied. Our approach was to compute a potentially automated decision support tool to improve the cost-effectiveness of blood culture sampling using highly standardized data resulting in ROC-AUCs between 0.759 and 0.804. Based on these models the NPV was 99.01% for model 1 and 98.1% for model 2 for patients of low risk for bacteraemia. Based on these results the proposed support tool would be able to safely reduce 12–16% of blood culture sampling leading to a reduction of costs.

In this study, statistical analysis was restricted to laboratory parameters as well as gender and patient's age, which are all readily available and highly standardized. These variables combine the advantage of reproducibility and availability as opposed to most clinical variables.

Pre-test probability of bacteraemia may vary considerably between studies potentially impacting on the diagnostic accuracy of prediction models [10], [11]. Our results are similar to those of a previous study by Piftenmeyer et al. reporting a 8.2% prevalence of bacteraemia [49]. Nakamura et. al. published a hospital based study with a 19.5% prevalence of bacteraemia and predicting bacteraemia with an ROC-AUC of 0.73 [47]. The prevalence of bacteraemia (19.5%) in this study is higher than generally reported for hospital-based studies and may therefore lack generalizability [10], [11]. Finally, Jin et al. evaluated a Bayesian algorithm for the prediction of bacteraemia in 19,303 patients, yielding an ROC-AUC of 0.70 [50]. In contrast to our study, however, laboratory markers included in the analysis were allowed a considerable lag time to blood culture sampling of up to 72 hours, or even 7 days in case of albumin and alkaline phosphatise. Considering the dynamic evolution of inflammation makers, this discrepancy in sampling times may have importantly impacted on their results.

Several limitations have to be acknowledged in this study. Firstly, the retrospective nature of the study may introduce bias in the analysis of the results. Although the data set has been split into a sub-set used for model generation and one for validation, the external generalizability needs to be addressed prospectively at other health care institutions. Finally, the applicability of an automated decision support tool needs to be tested in clinical practice. The potential trade-off between diagnostic certainty and economic aspects must be well-balanced and may vary between different settings [51], [52].

In conclusion our data show the utility of highly standardized variables for predicting bacteraemia with an ROC-AUC between 0.759 and 0.800. This prediction model may be tested for implication as clinical support tool to exclude blood culture sampling in patients with very low probability for bacteraemia. A prospective evaluation of the model's generalizability would be indicated.

Supporting Information

Figure S1.

Fagan's Nomogram. To graphically represent the correlation between pre-test probability, likelihood ratio and post-test probability; left side: negative likelihood ratio for low risk group cut-off point specification; right side: positive likelihood ratio for high group cut-off point specification.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106765.s001

(TIF)

Figure S2.

ROC-AUCs of various machine learning algorithms. A: Model 1 (20 variables); resulting in the following ROC-AUCs: A2DE: 0.7671 (CI: 0.754–.781), SVM 0.5 (CI: 0.5–0.5), Naïve Bayes: 0.547 (CI: 0.530–0.563), Multilayer Perceptron: 0.694 (CI: 0.677–0.710), Logistic Regression: 0.751 (CI: 0.737–0.766); B: Model 2 (10 variables), resulting in the following ROC-AUCs: A2DE: 0.759 (CI: 0.745–0.774), SVM: 0.5 (CI: 0.5–0.5), Naïve Bayes: 0.650 (CI: 0.633–0.666), Multilayer Perceptron: 0.729 (CI: 0.714–0.744), Logistic Regression: 0.742 (CI: 0.727–0.757).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106765.s002

(TIF)

Figure S3.

Calibration plots of model 1 and model 2. x-axis: predicted risk, y-axis: observed risk; a slight overestimation is seen in model 1 for patients with high risk for bacteraemia.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106765.s003

(TIF)

Figure S4.

ROC-AUCs of various the A2DE classifier at the validation set. Model 1: ROC- AUC: 0.80 (CI: 0.76–0.84). Model 2: ROC-AUC: 0.79 (CI: 0.74–0.83).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106765.s004

(TIF)

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MD M. Rammerstorfer TP HB M. Ramharter. Performed the experiments: TP AB AM FL. Analyzed the data: FR GD MD HB M. Ramharter. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MD M. Rammerstorfer GD AB AM TP. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: FR M. Ramharter FL GD TP HB.

References

  1. 1. Coburn B, Morris AM, Tomlinson G, Detsky AS (2012) Does This Adult Patient With Suspected Bacteremia Require Blood Cultures? Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 308: 502–511.
  2. 2. Bearman GML, Wenzel RP (2005) Bacteremias: A leading cause of death. Archives of Medical Research 36: 646–659.
  3. 3. Laupland KB (2013) Defining the epidemiology of bloodstream infections: the 'gold standard' of population-based assessment. Epidemiology and Infection 141: 2149–2157.
  4. 4. Lark RL, Saint S, Chenoweth C, Zemencuk JK, Lipsky BA, et al. (2001) Four-year prospective evaluation of community-acquired bacteremia: Epidemiology, microbiology, and patient outcome. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 41: 15–22.
  5. 5. Shapiro NI, Wolfe RE, Wright SB, Moore R, Bates DW (2008) Who needs a blood culture? A prospectively derived and validated prediction rule. J Emerg Med 35: 255–264.
  6. 6. Laupland KB, Zygun DA, Davies HD, Church DL, Louie TJ, et al. (2002) Population-based assessment of intensive care unit-acquired bloodstream infections in adults: Incidence, risk factors, and associated mortality rate. Crit Care Med 30: 2462–2467.
  7. 7. Yoshida T, Tsushima K, Tsuchiya A, Nishikawa N, Shirahata K, et al. (2005) Risk factors for hospital-acquired bacteremia. Intern Med 44: 1157–1162.
  8. 8. Shapiro NI, Wolfe RE, Wright SB, Moore R, Bates DW (2008) Who Needs a Blood Culture? A Prospectively Derived and Validated Prediction Rule. J Emerg Med 35: 255–264.
  9. 9. Perl B, Gottehrer NP, Raveh D, Schlesinger Y, Rudensky B, et al. (1999) Cost-effectiveness of blood cultures for adult patients with cellulitis. Clinical Infectious Diseases 29: 1483–1488.
  10. 10. Roth A, Wiklund AE, Palsson AS, Melander EZ, Wullt M, et al. (2010) Reducing Blood Culture Contamination by a Simple Informational Intervention. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 48: 4552–4558.
  11. 11. Bates DW, Cook EF, Goldman L, Lee TH (1990) Predicting bacteremia in hospitalized patients. A prospectively validated model. Ann Intern Med 113: 495–500.
  12. 12. Pien BC, Sundaram P, Raoof N, Costa SF, Mirrett S, et al. (2010) The Clinical and Prognostic Importance of Positive Blood Cultures in Adults. American Journal of Medicine 123: 819–828.
  13. 13. Little JR, Trovillion E, Fraser V (1997) High frequency of pseudobacteremia at a university hospital. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 18: 200–202.
  14. 14. Hall KK, Lyman JA (2006) Updated review of blood culture contamination. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 19: 788-+.
  15. 15. van der Heijden YF, Miller G, Wright PW, Shepherd BE, Daniels TL, et al. (2011) Clinical Impact of Blood Cultures Contaminated with Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci at an Academic Medical Center. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 32: 623–625.
  16. 16. Qamruddin A, Khanna N, Orr D (2008) Peripheral blood culture contamination in adults and venepuncture technique: prospective cohort study. Journal of Clinical Pathology 61: 509–513.
  17. 17. Bates DW, Goldman L, Lee TH (1991) Contaminant blood cultures and resource utilitzation – The true conseequneces of false-positive results. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 265: 365–369.
  18. 18. Alahmadi YM, Aldeyab MA, McElnay JC, Scott MG, Elhajji FWD, et al. (2011) Clinical and economic impact of contaminated blood cultures within the hospital setting. Journal of Hospital Infection 77: 233–236.
  19. 19. Zwang O, Albert RK (2006) Analysis of strategies to improve cost effectiveness of blood cultures. Journal of Hospital Medicine 1: 272–276.
  20. 20. Jaimes F, Arango C, Ruiz G, Cuervo J, Botero J, et al. (2004) Predicting bacteremia at the bedside. Clinical Infectious Diseases 38: 357–362.
  21. 21. Bates DW, Sands K, Miller E, Lanken PN, Hibberd PL, et al. (1997) Predicting bacteremia in patients with sepsis syndrome. Journal of Infectious Diseases 176: 1538–1551.
  22. 22. Lee CC, Wu CJ, Chi CH, Lee NY, Chen PL, et al. (2012) Prediction of community-onset bacteremia among febrile adults visiting an emergency department: rigor matters. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 73: 168–173.
  23. 23. Tudela P, Lacoma A, Prat C, Modol JM, Gimenez M, et al. (2010) Prediction of bacteremia in patients with suspicion of infection in emergency room. Medicina Clinica 135: 685–690.
  24. 24. Kuppermann N, Fleisher GR, Jaffe DM (1998) Predictors of occult pneumococcal bacteremia in young febrile children. Annals of Emergency Medicine 31: 679–687.
  25. 25. Liao L, Mark DB (2003) Clinical prediction models: Are we building better mousetraps? Journal of the American College of Cardiology 42: 851–853.
  26. 26. Moonesinghe SR, Mythen MG, Das P, Rowan KM, Grocott MPW (2013) Risk Stratification Tools for Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in Adult Patients Undergoing Major Surgery Qualitative Systematic Review. Anesthesiology 119: 959–981.
  27. 27. Hall KK, Lyman JA (2006) Updated review of blood culture contamination. Clin Microbiol Rev 19: 788–802.
  28. 28. Akobeng AK (2007) Understanding diagnostic tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr 96: 644–647.
  29. 29. Fluss R, Faraggi D, Reiser B (2005) Estimation of the Youden Index and its associated cutoff point. Biom J 47: 458–472.
  30. 30. Kundu S, Aulchenko YS, van Duijn CM, Janssens AC (2011) PredictABEL: an R package for the assessment of risk prediction models. Eur J Epidemiol 26: 261–264.
  31. 31. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, et al. (2011) pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 12: 77.
  32. 32. Kohavi R, John GH (1997) Wrappers for feature subset selection. Artif Intell 97: 273–324.
  33. 33. Hall M (1999) Correlation-based Feature Subset Selection for Machine Learning: Department of Computer Science, University of Waikato.
  34. 34. Zheng F, Webb G (2007) Finding the Right Family: Parent and Child Selection for Averaged One-Dependence Estimators. In: Kok J, Koronacki J, Mantaras R, Matwin S, Mladenič D, et al., editors. Machine Learning: ECML 2007: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 490–501.
  35. 35. Lowd D, Domingos P (2005) Naive Bayes models for probability estimation. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning. Bonn, Germany: ACM. pp. 529–536.
  36. 36. Zaidi N, Webb G (2013) Fast and Effective Single Pass Bayesian Learning. In: Pei J, Tseng V, Cao L, Motoda H, Xu G, editors. Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 149–160.
  37. 37. Webb G, Boughton J, Zheng F, Ting K, Salem H (2012) Learning by extrapolation from marginal to full-multivariate probability distributions: decreasingly naive Bayesian classification. Machine Learning 86: 233–272.
  38. 38. Webb GI, Boughton JR, Wang Z (2005) Not So Naive Bayes: Aggregating One-Dependence Estimators. Machine Learning 58: 5–24.
  39. 39. Garcia-Jimenez B, Juan D, Ezkurdia I, Andres-Leon E, Valencia A (2010) Inference of functional relations in predicted protein networks with a machine learning approach. PLoS One 5: e9969.
  40. 40. De Ferrari L, Aitken S (2006) Mining housekeeping genes with a Naive Bayes classifier. BMC Genomics 7: 277.
  41. 41. Kurz DJ, Bernstein A, Hunt K, Radovanovic D, Erne P, et al. (2009) Simple point-of-care risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: the AMIS model. Heart 95: 662–668.
  42. 42. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44: 837–845.
  43. 43. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, et al. (2011) pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 12: 77.
  44. 44. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148: 839–843.
  45. 45. Carpenter J, Bithell J (2000) Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. Statistics in Medicine 19: 1141–1164.
  46. 46. Su CP, Chen TH, Chen SY, Ghiang WC, Wu GH, et al. (2011) Predictive model for bacteremia in adult patients with blood cultures performed at the emergency department: a preliminary report. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 44: 449–455.
  47. 47. Nakamura T, Takahashi O, Matsui K, Shimizu S, Setoyama M, et al. (2006) Clinical prediction rules for bacteremia and in-hospital death based on clinical data at the time of blood withdrawal for culture: an evaluation of their development and use. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 12: 692–703.
  48. 48. Shapiro NI, Wolfe RE, Wright SB, Moore R, Bates DW (2008) Who needs a blood culture? A prospectively derived and validated prediction rule. J Emerg Med 35: 255–264.
  49. 49. Pfitzenmeyer P, Decrey H, Auckenthaler R, Michel JP (1995) Predicting bacteremia in older patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 43: 230–235.
  50. 50. Jin SJ, Kim M, Yoon JH, Song YG (2013) A new statistical approach to predict bacteremia using electronic medical records. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 45: 672–680.
  51. 51. Raoult D (2010) Strange world of emergency medicine. J Emerg Med 39: 501; author reply 501–502.
  52. 52. Shapiro NI, Bates DW (2010) Response: The unacceptable costs of trying to achieve “diagnostic certainty”. J Emerg Med 39: 501–502.