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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications in urinary tract infections identification and prediction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Neutrophil Percentage-to-Albumin Ratio as a Predictor of Urinary Tract Infection in Patients with Urinary Stone Disease: Development a Novel User-Friendly Tool.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- Enhancing breast cancer diagnosis: non-invasive prediction of MKI-67 (Ki67) expression using ultrasound images.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Machine learning to predict bacteriuria in the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Advancing Laboratory Medicine Practice With Machine Learning: Swift yet Exact.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Review
- Risk Factors Analysis of Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions Caused by Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy Drugs for Oncology and Establishment of a Prediction Model.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- A Risk-Factor Model for Antineoplastic Drug-Induced Serious Adverse Events in Cancer Inpatients: A Retrospective Study Based on the Global Trigger Tool and Machine Learning.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.