Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31443706›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Using artificial intelligence to reduce diagnostic workload without compromising detection of urinary tract infections.

Ross J Burton, Mahableshwar Albur, Matthias Eberl, Simone M Cuff

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 137 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Machine learning techniques in hepatic encephalopathy: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ross J BurtonDepartment of Infection Sciences, Severn Pathology, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. BurtonRJ@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1516-7749
Mahableshwar AlburDepartment of Infection Sciences, Severn Pathology, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
Matthias EberlDivision of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Henry Wellcome Building, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK.
Simone M CuffDivision of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Henry Wellcome Building, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK.
Cardiff University · GBPublic Health England · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N023145/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA substantial proportion of microbiological screening in diagnostic laboratories is due to suspected urinary tract infections (UTIs), yet approximately two thirds of urine samples typically yield negative culture results. By reducing the number of query samples to be cultured and enabling diagnostic services to concentrate on those in which there are true microbial infections, a significant improvement in efficiency of the service is possible. METHODOLOGY: Screening process for urine samples prior to culture was modelled in a single clinical microbiology laboratory covering three hospitals and community services across Bristol and Bath, UK. Retrospective analysis of all urine microscopy, culture, and sensitivity reports over one year was used to compare two methods of classification: a heuristic model using a combination of white blood cell count and bacterial count, and a machine learning approach testing three algorithms (Random Forest, Neural Network, Extreme Gradient Boosting) whilst factoring in independent variables including demographics, historical urine culture results, and clinical details provided with the specimen.

resultsA total of 212,554 urine reports were analysed. Initial findings demonstrated the potential for using machine learning algorithms, which outperformed the heuristic model in terms of relative workload reduction achieved at a classification sensitivity > 95%. Upon further analysis of classification sensitivity of subpopulations, we concluded that samples from pregnant patients and children (age 11 or younger) require independent evaluation. First the removal of pregnant patients and children from the classification process was investigated but this diminished the workload reduction achieved. The optimal solution was found to be three Extreme Gradient Boosting algorithms, trained independently for the classification of pregnant patients, children, and then all other patients. When combined, this system granted a relative workload reduction of 41% and a sensitivity of 95% for each of the stratified patient groups.

conclusionBased on the considerable time and cost savings achieved, without compromising the diagnostic performance, the heuristic model was successfully implemented in routine clinical practice in the diagnostic laboratory at Severn Pathology, Bristol. Our work shows the potential application of supervised machine learning models in improving service efficiency at a time when demand often surpasses resources of public healthcare providers.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningWorkloadAdolescentAdultAgedAlgorithmsChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerPregnancyAlgorithmsDiagnostic decision makingLaboratory medicineMachine learningUrinary tract infection

Identifiers

PMID31443706
PMCPMC6708133
OpenAlexW2969261116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.