ArticleHeliyon2025
Machine learning to predict urine culture antibiotic sensitivities in the emergency department.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Point-Counterpoint: The "obsoletogram"-are annual hospital antibiograms still relevant?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Evolution of technology and disparities in antimicrobial stewardship: a narrative review.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Review
- The impact of artificial intelligence on the prescribing, selection, resistance, and stewardship of antimicrobials: a scoping review.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Optimised RFO tuned RF-DETR model for precision urine microscopy for renal and systemic disease diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common bacterial infections diagnosed in the emergency department. Treatment of UTIs is largely empiric because urine culture results are not rapidly available. Objectives: We examined whether machine learning could predict antibiotic sensitivities of the urine cultures by using only data available during the clinical encounter. Methods: We used extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) to examine 62,963 emergency department patient encounters from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. All encounters included a urinalysis and urine culture. We included 1303 variables in the full model and examined 21 antibiotics. An antibiotic was characterized as Results: We predicted urine cultures to be sensitive vs intermediate or resistant with area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) values ranging from 70 % (for amikacin) to 90 % (for linezolid) (median, 82 %) when negative urine cultures were characterized as antibiotic susceptible. AUROCs were as follows: nitrofurantoin (84 %); trimethoprim + sulfamethoxazole (80 %); ciprofloxacin (85 %); levofloxacin (85 %); first-generation cephalosporins (84 %); and third-generation cephalosporins (80 %). When models excluded urine cultures with no bacterial growth, AUROCs ranged from 66 % (for ampicillin) to 87 % (for amikacin) (median, 74 %). When models included only patients diagnosed with a UTI plus bacteriuria (≥10,000 colony-forming units per mL in urine culture), AUROCs ranged from 63 % (for ampicillin) to 85 % (for tetracycline) (median, 74 %). Conclusion: XGBoost can predict bacteriuria antibiotic sensitivities.
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.