Risk Factors and Prediction Model for Mortality in Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli Septicemia: A Retrospective Study


Abstract

Background: Klebsiella pneumoniae (KP) and Escherichia coli (E. coli) are common pathogens causing septicemia, which is associated with high mortality rates. Identifying risk factors and developing accurate predictive models for mortality in these patients are crucial for improving clinical outcomes. This study aimed to identify risk factors for mortality in patients with KP and E. coli septicemia and to develop and validate a predictive model using machine learning (ML) techniques.

Methods: A total of 468 participants diagnosed with KP or E. coli septicemia were included in this retrospective study conducted at the First People's Hospital of Jiande from 2010 to 2025. After excluding missing values, participants were randomly divided into training (70%) and validation (30%) cohorts. The Boruta algorithm was applied to the training cohort to identify significant risk factors for mortality. These variables were then used to construct a nomogram prediction model, and its performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, decision curve analysis (DCA) curves, and calibration curves. Additionally, the identified variables were incorporated into various ML models to compare their predictive performance.

Results: The CatBoost model demonstrated the highest area under the curve (AUC) value (AUC = 0.922, 95% CI: 0.862 - 0.983), indicating superior predictive accuracy for mortality compared to other models. The Boruta algorithm identified nine significant risk factors, including elevated or reduced white blood cell count, decreased red blood cell count, decreased platelet count, elevated hemoglobin level, carbapenem-resistant (CRE) bacterial infection, presence of shock, respiratory failure, coma, and leukemia. The nomogram prediction model achieved an AUC of 0.94 in the training set and 0.88 in the validation set, showing excellent discrimination and calibration.

Conclusions: This study identified key risk factors for mortality in patients with KP and E. coli septicemia and developed a highly accurate predictive model using the CatBoost algorithm. The nomogram model also demonstrated excellent predictive performance, which could be a valuable tool for clinical decision-making. Further validation in larger cohorts is warranted to confirm the generalizability of these findings.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].