We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Surveillance of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) is the foundation of infection control. Machine learning (ML) has been demonstrated to be a valuable tool for HAI surveillance. We compared manual surveillance with a supervised, semiautomated, ML method, and we explored the types of infection and features of importance depicted by the model.
Methods:
From July 2021 to December 2021, a semiautomated surveillance method based on the ML random forest algorithm, was implemented in a Brazilian hospital. Inpatient records were independently manually searched by the local team, and a panel of independent experts reviewed the ML semiautomated results for confirmation of HAI.
Results:
Among 6,296 patients, manual surveillance classified 183 HAI cases (2.9%), and a semiautomated method found 299 HAI cases (4.7%). The semiautomated method added 77 respiratory infections, which comprised 93.9% of the additional HAIs. The ML model considered 447 features for HAI classification. Among them, 148 features (33.1%) were related to infection signs and symptoms; 101 (22.6%) were related to patient severity status, 51 features (11.4%) were related to bacterial laboratory results; 40 features (8.9%) were related to invasive procedures; 34 (7.6%) were related to antibiotic use; and 31 features (6.9%) were related to patient comorbidities. Among these 447 features, 229 (51.2%) were similar to those proposed by NHSN as criteria for HAI classification.
Conclusion:
The ML algorithm, which included most NHSN criteria and >200 features, augmented the human capacity for HAI classification. Well-documented algorithm performances may facilitate the incorporation of AI tools in clinical or epidemiological practice and overcome the drawbacks of traditional HAI surveillance.