Machine learning in the clinical microbiology laboratory: has the time come for routine practice?
Machine learning (ML) allows the analysis of complex and large data sets and has the potential to improve health care. The clinical microbiology laboratory, at the interface of clinical practice and diagnostics, is of special interest for the development of ML systems. This narrative review aims to...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical microbiology and infection 2020-10, Vol.26 (10), p.1300-1309 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1309 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 1300 |
container_title | Clinical microbiology and infection |
container_volume | 26 |
creator | Peiffer-Smadja, N. Dellière, S. Rodriguez, C. Birgand, G. Lescure, F.-X. Fourati, S. Ruppé, E. |
description | Machine learning (ML) allows the analysis of complex and large data sets and has the potential to improve health care. The clinical microbiology laboratory, at the interface of clinical practice and diagnostics, is of special interest for the development of ML systems.
This narrative review aims to explore the current use of ML In clinical microbiology.
References for this review were identified through searches of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, biorXiv, arXiV, ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore Digital Library up to November 2019.
We found 97 ML systems aiming to assist clinical microbiologists. Overall, 82 ML systems (85%) targeted bacterial infections, 11 (11%) parasitic infections, nine (9%) viral infections and three (3%) fungal infections. Forty ML systems (41%) focused on microorganism detection, identification and quantification, 36 (37%) evaluated antimicrobial susceptibility, and 21 (22%) targeted the diagnosis, disease classification and prediction of clinical outcomes. The ML systems used very diverse data sources: 21 (22%) used genomic data of microorganisms, 19 (20%) microbiota data obtained by metagenomic sequencing, 19 (20%) analysed microscopic images, 17 (18%) spectroscopy data, eight (8%) targeted gene sequencing, six (6%) volatile organic compounds, four (4%) photographs of bacterial colonies, four (4%) transcriptome data, three (3%) protein structure, and three (3%) clinical data. Most systems used data from high-income countries (n = 71, 73%) but a significant number used data from low- and middle-income countries (n = 36, 37%). Performance measures were reported for the 97 ML systems, but no article described their use in clinical practice or reported impact on processes or clinical outcomes.
In clinical microbiology, ML has been used with various data sources and diverse practical applications. The evaluation and implementation processes represent the main gap in existing ML systems, requiring a focus on their interpretability and potential integration into real-world settings.
[Display omitted] |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.02.006 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03491570v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1198743X20300859</els_id><sourcerecordid>2356594353</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-e3f2fa9bfc936f4560848650bc6bef89d11baabf9353d0556588a892128345403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1DAURi0EoqXwAGxQlrBIuP6dGBZVVVGKNIgNSOysG8fueOTEg52pNG-Ph2m7ZGNb1rnnSt9HyFsKHQWqPm47O4WOAYMOWAegnpFzKpRuQWn6vL6p7tuV4L_PyKtStgDAOBcvyRlnoOhKy3OC39Fuwuya6DDPYb5rwtwsG9fYGOZgMTZTsDkNIcV0d2giDinjkvLhU7PB8o9cwlTxVA-fcpPTfjn6dhntEqy7fE1eeIzFvXm4L8ivmy8_r2_b9Y-v366v1q0VHJbWcc886sFbzZUXUkEveiVhsGpwvtcjpQPi4DWXfAQplex77DWjrOdCCuAX5MPJu8FodjlMmA8mYTC3V2tz_AMuNJUruKeVfX9idzn92buymCkU62LE2aV9MYxXvxZ1VUXpCa0plJKdf3JTMMcWzNbUFsyxBQPM1BbqzLsH_X6Y3Pg08Rh7BT6fAFcDuQ8um2KDm60bQ3Z2MWMK_9H_BYQ4lsI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2356594353</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Machine learning in the clinical microbiology laboratory: has the time come for routine practice?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Peiffer-Smadja, N. ; Dellière, S. ; Rodriguez, C. ; Birgand, G. ; Lescure, F.-X. ; Fourati, S. ; Ruppé, E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Peiffer-Smadja, N. ; Dellière, S. ; Rodriguez, C. ; Birgand, G. ; Lescure, F.-X. ; Fourati, S. ; Ruppé, E.</creatorcontrib><description>Machine learning (ML) allows the analysis of complex and large data sets and has the potential to improve health care. The clinical microbiology laboratory, at the interface of clinical practice and diagnostics, is of special interest for the development of ML systems.
This narrative review aims to explore the current use of ML In clinical microbiology.
References for this review were identified through searches of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, biorXiv, arXiV, ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore Digital Library up to November 2019.
We found 97 ML systems aiming to assist clinical microbiologists. Overall, 82 ML systems (85%) targeted bacterial infections, 11 (11%) parasitic infections, nine (9%) viral infections and three (3%) fungal infections. Forty ML systems (41%) focused on microorganism detection, identification and quantification, 36 (37%) evaluated antimicrobial susceptibility, and 21 (22%) targeted the diagnosis, disease classification and prediction of clinical outcomes. The ML systems used very diverse data sources: 21 (22%) used genomic data of microorganisms, 19 (20%) microbiota data obtained by metagenomic sequencing, 19 (20%) analysed microscopic images, 17 (18%) spectroscopy data, eight (8%) targeted gene sequencing, six (6%) volatile organic compounds, four (4%) photographs of bacterial colonies, four (4%) transcriptome data, three (3%) protein structure, and three (3%) clinical data. Most systems used data from high-income countries (n = 71, 73%) but a significant number used data from low- and middle-income countries (n = 36, 37%). Performance measures were reported for the 97 ML systems, but no article described their use in clinical practice or reported impact on processes or clinical outcomes.
In clinical microbiology, ML has been used with various data sources and diverse practical applications. The evaluation and implementation processes represent the main gap in existing ML systems, requiring a focus on their interpretability and potential integration into real-world settings.
[Display omitted]</description><identifier>ISSN: 1198-743X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-0691</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.02.006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32061795</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Artificial intelligence ; Bacterial Infections - diagnosis ; Bacterial Infections - therapy ; Clinical Laboratory Services ; Clinical microbiology ; Data Analysis ; Humans ; Implementation science ; Information Technology ; Life Sciences ; Machine Learning ; Microbial Sensitivity Tests ; Mycoses - diagnosis ; Mycoses - therapy ; Parasitic Diseases - diagnosis ; Parasitic Diseases - therapy ; Virus Diseases - diagnosis ; Virus Diseases - therapy</subject><ispartof>Clinical microbiology and infection, 2020-10, Vol.26 (10), p.1300-1309</ispartof><rights>2020</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.</rights><rights>Attribution - NonCommercial</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-e3f2fa9bfc936f4560848650bc6bef89d11baabf9353d0556588a892128345403</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-e3f2fa9bfc936f4560848650bc6bef89d11baabf9353d0556588a892128345403</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32061795$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-03491570$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Peiffer-Smadja, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dellière, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Birgand, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lescure, F.-X.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fourati, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruppé, E.</creatorcontrib><title>Machine learning in the clinical microbiology laboratory: has the time come for routine practice?</title><title>Clinical microbiology and infection</title><addtitle>Clin Microbiol Infect</addtitle><description>Machine learning (ML) allows the analysis of complex and large data sets and has the potential to improve health care. The clinical microbiology laboratory, at the interface of clinical practice and diagnostics, is of special interest for the development of ML systems.
This narrative review aims to explore the current use of ML In clinical microbiology.
References for this review were identified through searches of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, biorXiv, arXiV, ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore Digital Library up to November 2019.
We found 97 ML systems aiming to assist clinical microbiologists. Overall, 82 ML systems (85%) targeted bacterial infections, 11 (11%) parasitic infections, nine (9%) viral infections and three (3%) fungal infections. Forty ML systems (41%) focused on microorganism detection, identification and quantification, 36 (37%) evaluated antimicrobial susceptibility, and 21 (22%) targeted the diagnosis, disease classification and prediction of clinical outcomes. The ML systems used very diverse data sources: 21 (22%) used genomic data of microorganisms, 19 (20%) microbiota data obtained by metagenomic sequencing, 19 (20%) analysed microscopic images, 17 (18%) spectroscopy data, eight (8%) targeted gene sequencing, six (6%) volatile organic compounds, four (4%) photographs of bacterial colonies, four (4%) transcriptome data, three (3%) protein structure, and three (3%) clinical data. Most systems used data from high-income countries (n = 71, 73%) but a significant number used data from low- and middle-income countries (n = 36, 37%). Performance measures were reported for the 97 ML systems, but no article described their use in clinical practice or reported impact on processes or clinical outcomes.
In clinical microbiology, ML has been used with various data sources and diverse practical applications. The evaluation and implementation processes represent the main gap in existing ML systems, requiring a focus on their interpretability and potential integration into real-world settings.
[Display omitted]</description><subject>Artificial intelligence</subject><subject>Bacterial Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Bacterial Infections - therapy</subject><subject>Clinical Laboratory Services</subject><subject>Clinical microbiology</subject><subject>Data Analysis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implementation science</subject><subject>Information Technology</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Machine Learning</subject><subject>Microbial Sensitivity Tests</subject><subject>Mycoses - diagnosis</subject><subject>Mycoses - therapy</subject><subject>Parasitic Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Parasitic Diseases - therapy</subject><subject>Virus Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Virus Diseases - therapy</subject><issn>1198-743X</issn><issn>1469-0691</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1DAURi0EoqXwAGxQlrBIuP6dGBZVVVGKNIgNSOysG8fueOTEg52pNG-Ph2m7ZGNb1rnnSt9HyFsKHQWqPm47O4WOAYMOWAegnpFzKpRuQWn6vL6p7tuV4L_PyKtStgDAOBcvyRlnoOhKy3OC39Fuwuya6DDPYb5rwtwsG9fYGOZgMTZTsDkNIcV0d2giDinjkvLhU7PB8o9cwlTxVA-fcpPTfjn6dhntEqy7fE1eeIzFvXm4L8ivmy8_r2_b9Y-v366v1q0VHJbWcc886sFbzZUXUkEveiVhsGpwvtcjpQPi4DWXfAQplex77DWjrOdCCuAX5MPJu8FodjlMmA8mYTC3V2tz_AMuNJUruKeVfX9idzn92buymCkU62LE2aV9MYxXvxZ1VUXpCa0plJKdf3JTMMcWzNbUFsyxBQPM1BbqzLsH_X6Y3Pg08Rh7BT6fAFcDuQ8um2KDm60bQ3Z2MWMK_9H_BYQ4lsI</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Peiffer-Smadja, N.</creator><creator>Dellière, S.</creator><creator>Rodriguez, C.</creator><creator>Birgand, G.</creator><creator>Lescure, F.-X.</creator><creator>Fourati, S.</creator><creator>Ruppé, E.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier for the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Machine learning in the clinical microbiology laboratory: has the time come for routine practice?</title><author>Peiffer-Smadja, N. ; Dellière, S. ; Rodriguez, C. ; Birgand, G. ; Lescure, F.-X. ; Fourati, S. ; Ruppé, E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-e3f2fa9bfc936f4560848650bc6bef89d11baabf9353d0556588a892128345403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Artificial intelligence</topic><topic>Bacterial Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Bacterial Infections - therapy</topic><topic>Clinical Laboratory Services</topic><topic>Clinical microbiology</topic><topic>Data Analysis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implementation science</topic><topic>Information Technology</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Machine Learning</topic><topic>Microbial Sensitivity Tests</topic><topic>Mycoses - diagnosis</topic><topic>Mycoses - therapy</topic><topic>Parasitic Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Parasitic Diseases - therapy</topic><topic>Virus Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Virus Diseases - therapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Peiffer-Smadja, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dellière, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Birgand, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lescure, F.-X.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fourati, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruppé, E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><jtitle>Clinical microbiology and infection</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Peiffer-Smadja, N.</au><au>Dellière, S.</au><au>Rodriguez, C.</au><au>Birgand, G.</au><au>Lescure, F.-X.</au><au>Fourati, S.</au><au>Ruppé, E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Machine learning in the clinical microbiology laboratory: has the time come for routine practice?</atitle><jtitle>Clinical microbiology and infection</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Microbiol Infect</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1300</spage><epage>1309</epage><pages>1300-1309</pages><issn>1198-743X</issn><eissn>1469-0691</eissn><abstract>Machine learning (ML) allows the analysis of complex and large data sets and has the potential to improve health care. The clinical microbiology laboratory, at the interface of clinical practice and diagnostics, is of special interest for the development of ML systems.
This narrative review aims to explore the current use of ML In clinical microbiology.
References for this review were identified through searches of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, biorXiv, arXiV, ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore Digital Library up to November 2019.
We found 97 ML systems aiming to assist clinical microbiologists. Overall, 82 ML systems (85%) targeted bacterial infections, 11 (11%) parasitic infections, nine (9%) viral infections and three (3%) fungal infections. Forty ML systems (41%) focused on microorganism detection, identification and quantification, 36 (37%) evaluated antimicrobial susceptibility, and 21 (22%) targeted the diagnosis, disease classification and prediction of clinical outcomes. The ML systems used very diverse data sources: 21 (22%) used genomic data of microorganisms, 19 (20%) microbiota data obtained by metagenomic sequencing, 19 (20%) analysed microscopic images, 17 (18%) spectroscopy data, eight (8%) targeted gene sequencing, six (6%) volatile organic compounds, four (4%) photographs of bacterial colonies, four (4%) transcriptome data, three (3%) protein structure, and three (3%) clinical data. Most systems used data from high-income countries (n = 71, 73%) but a significant number used data from low- and middle-income countries (n = 36, 37%). Performance measures were reported for the 97 ML systems, but no article described their use in clinical practice or reported impact on processes or clinical outcomes.
In clinical microbiology, ML has been used with various data sources and diverse practical applications. The evaluation and implementation processes represent the main gap in existing ML systems, requiring a focus on their interpretability and potential integration into real-world settings.
[Display omitted]</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>32061795</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cmi.2020.02.006</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1198-743X |
ispartof | Clinical microbiology and infection, 2020-10, Vol.26 (10), p.1300-1309 |
issn | 1198-743X 1469-0691 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03491570v1 |
source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Artificial intelligence Bacterial Infections - diagnosis Bacterial Infections - therapy Clinical Laboratory Services Clinical microbiology Data Analysis Humans Implementation science Information Technology Life Sciences Machine Learning Microbial Sensitivity Tests Mycoses - diagnosis Mycoses - therapy Parasitic Diseases - diagnosis Parasitic Diseases - therapy Virus Diseases - diagnosis Virus Diseases - therapy |
title | Machine learning in the clinical microbiology laboratory: has the time come for routine practice? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T19%3A31%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Machine%20learning%20in%20the%20clinical%20microbiology%20laboratory:%20has%20the%20time%20come%20for%20routine%20practice?&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20microbiology%20and%20infection&rft.au=Peiffer-Smadja,%20N.&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1300&rft.epage=1309&rft.pages=1300-1309&rft.issn=1198-743X&rft.eissn=1469-0691&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.02.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2356594353%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2356594353&rft_id=info:pmid/32061795&rft_els_id=S1198743X20300859&rfr_iscdi=true |