Author
Listed:
- R Andrew Taylor
- Christopher L Moore
- Kei-Hoi Cheung
- Cynthia Brandt
Abstract
Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common emergency department (ED) diagnosis with reported high diagnostic error rates. Because a urine culture, part of the gold standard for diagnosis of UTI, is usually not available for 24–48 hours after an ED visit, diagnosis and treatment decisions are based on symptoms, physical findings, and other laboratory results, potentially leading to overutilization, antibiotic resistance, and delayed treatment. Previous research has demonstrated inadequate diagnostic performance for both individual laboratory tests and prediction tools. Objective: Our aim, was to train, validate, and compare machine-learning based predictive models for UTI in a large diverse set of ED patients. Methods: Single-center, multi-site, retrospective cohort analysis of 80,387 adult ED visits with urine culture results and UTI symptoms. We developed models for UTI prediction with six machine learning algorithms using demographic information, vitals, laboratory results, medications, past medical history, chief complaint, and structured historical and physical exam findings. Models were developed with both the full set of 211 variables and a reduced set of 10 variables. UTI predictions were compared between models and to proxies of provider judgment (documentation of UTI diagnosis and antibiotic administration). Results: The machine learning models had an area under the curve ranging from 0.826–0.904, with extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) the top performing algorithm for both full and reduced models. The XGBoost full and reduced models demonstrated greatly improved specificity when compared to the provider judgment proxy of UTI diagnosis OR antibiotic administration with specificity differences of 33.3 (31.3–34.3) and 29.6 (28.5–30.6), while also demonstrating superior sensitivity when compared to documentation of UTI diagnosis with sensitivity differences of 38.7 (38.1–39.4) and 33.2 (32.5–33.9). In the admission and discharge cohorts using the full XGboost model, approximately 1 in 4 patients (4109/15855) would be re-categorized from a false positive to a true negative and approximately 1 in 11 patients (1372/15855) would be re-categorized from a false negative to a true positive. Conclusion: The best performing machine learning algorithm, XGBoost, accurately diagnosed positive urine culture results, and outperformed previously developed models in the literature and several proxies for provider judgment. Future prospective validation is warranted.
Suggested Citation
R Andrew Taylor & Christopher L Moore & Kei-Hoi Cheung & Cynthia Brandt, 2018.
"Predicting urinary tract infections in the emergency department with machine learning,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0194085
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194085
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Daniel A da Silva & Carla S ten Caten & Rodrigo P dos Santos & Flavio S Fogliatto & Juliana Hsuan, 2019.
"Predicting the occurrence of surgical site infections using text mining and machine learning,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, December.
- Jens Kjølseth Møller & Martin Sørensen & Christian Hardahl, 2021.
"Prediction of risk of acquiring urinary tract infection during hospital stay based on machine-learning: A retrospective cohort study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16, March.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194085. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.