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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical microbiology and infection 2020-10, Vol.26 (10), p.1300-1309
Hauptverfasser: Peiffer-Smadja, N., Dellière, S., Rodriguez, C., Birgand, G., Lescure, F.-X., Fourati, S., Ruppé, E.
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