Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35280663›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2022

Contrast between traditional and machine learning algorithms based on a urine culture predictive model: a multicenter retrospective study in patients with urinary calculi.

Yuhui He, Panxin Peng, Wenwei Ying, Qinwei Wang, Yan Wang, Xiankui Liu, Wenhui Song, Yue Gao, Peizhe Li, Jie Wang and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

15 authors.

Yuhui He *Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Panxin Peng *Department of Urology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wenwei Ying *Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Qinwei WangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Yan WangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Xiankui LiuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Wenhui SongDepartment of Urology, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Yue GaoDepartment of Urology, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Peizhe LiDepartment of Urology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jie WangDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Weijie ZhuDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wenzhi GaoDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaofeng ZhouDepartment of Urology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xuesong LiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Liqun ZhouDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Quick and accurate identification of urinary calculi patients with positive urinary cultures is critical to the choice of the treatment strategy. Predictive models based on machine learning algorithms provide a new way to solve this problem. This study aims to determine the predictive value of machine learning algorithms using a urine culture predictive model based on patients with urinary calculi. Methods: Data were collected from four clinical centers in the period of June 2016, to May 2019. 2,054 cases were included in the study. The dataset was randomly split into ratios of 5:5, 6:4, and 7:3 for model construction and validation. Predictive models of urine culture outcomes were constructed and validated by logistic regression, random forest, adaboost, and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) models. Each ratio's construction and verification were repeated five times independently for cross-validation. The Matthews correlation coefficient (MMC), F1-score, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with the area under curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the performance of each prediction model. The additive net reclassification index (NRI) and absolute NRI were used to assess the predictive capabilities of the models. Results: Four prediction models of urinary culture results in patients with urinary calculi were constructed. The mean AUCs of the logistic regression, random forest, adaboost, and GBDT models were 0.761 (95% CI: 0.753-0.770), 0.790 (95% CI: 0.782-0.798), 0.779 (95% CI: 0.766-0.791), and 0.831 (95% CI: 0.823-0.840), respectively. Moreover, the average MMC and F1-score of GBDT model was 0.460 and 0.588, which was improved compared to logistic regression model of 0.335 and 0.501. The additive NRI and absolute NRI of the GBDT and logistic regression models were 0.124 (95% CI: 0.106-0.142) and 0.065 (95% CI: 0.060-0.069), respectively. Conclusions: Our results indicate that machine learning algorithms may be useful tools for urine culture outcome prediction in patients with urinary calculi because they exhibit superior performance compared with the logistic regression model.

Indexed as

bacteriuriaearly diagnosisLogistic regressionmachine learningurinary calculi

Identifiers

PMID35280663
PMCPMC8899151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.