ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2023
A fully interpretable machine learning model for increasing the effectiveness of urine screening.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing Glomerular Hematuria Identification in Automated Urinalysis Using a Light Gradient Boosting Machine-Based Model: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- The evolution of diagnostic microbiology: integrating culture-based methods and genomic advances.PeerJ · 2026Review
- Screening performance of the MUS-3600 urine analyzer for urinary tract infection: comparison with urine culture.Acta biochimica Polonica · 2026Article
- Application of Machine Learning Algorithms in Urinary Tract Infections Diagnosis Based on Non-Microbiological Parameters.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial Neural Network for the Fast Screening of Samples from Suspected Urinary Tract Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advancing Laboratory Medicine Practice With Machine Learning: Swift yet Exact.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis article addresses the need for effective screening methods to identify negative urine samples before urine culture, reducing the workload, cost, and release time of results in the microbiology laboratory. We try to overcome the limitations of current solutions, which are either too simple, limiting effectiveness (1 or 2 parameters), or too complex, limiting interpretation, trust, and real-world implementation ("black box" machine learning models).
methodsThe study analyzed 15,312 samples from 10,534 patients with clinical features and the Sysmex Uf-1000i automated analyzer data. Decision tree (DT) models with or without lookahead strategy were used, as they offer a transparent set of logical rules that can be easily understood by medical professionals and implemented into automated analyzers.
resultsThe best model achieved a sensitivity of 94.5% and classified negative samples based on age, bacteria, mucus, and 2 scattering parameters. The model reduced the workload by an additional 16% compared to the current procedure in the laboratory, with an estimated financial impact of €40,000/y considering 15,000 samples/y. Identified logical rules have a scientific rationale matched to existing knowledge in the literature.
conclusionsOverall, this study provides an effective and interpretable screening method for urine culture in microbiology laboratories, using data from the Sysmex UF-1000i automated analyzer. Unlike other machine learning models, our model is interpretable, generating trust and enabling real-world implementation.
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.