Machine learning in the clinical microbiology laboratory: has the time come for routine practice?. (October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Peiffer-Smadja, N.; Dellière, S.; Rodriguez, C.; Birgand, G.; Lescure, F.-X.; Fourati, S.; Ruppé, E.
• Is Part Of: Clinical microbiology and infection. Volume 26:Number 10(2020)
• Page Start: 1300
• Page End: 1309
• Publication Date: 2020-10
• Subjects: Artificial intelligence -- Clinical microbiology -- Implementation science -- Information technology -- Machine learning; Medical microbiology -- Periodicals; Diagnostic microbiology -- Periodicals; Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; Infection -- Periodicals; 616.01
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.02.006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1198-743X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: 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. Aims: This narrative review aims to explore the current use of ML In clinical microbiology. Sources: 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. Content: 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. Implications: 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. Graphical abstract: Image 1