ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning to predict bacteriuria in the emergency department.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common bacterial infections, yet they are both frequently misdiagnosed and inappropriately treated. We aimed to determine whether a machine learning model could accurately predict bacteriuria by using only the data that are readily available during the emergency department (ED) patient encounter. We retrospectively identified records of 62,963 patient encounters at our EDs that included results from a urinalysis and urine cultures. Encounters occurred from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. We used a logistic regression classifier, k-nearest neighbors, random forest classifier, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and a deep neural network to determine how well they predicted 3 urine culture outcomes: (1) no microbial growth vs. any microbial growth, including mixed flora; (2) ≥10,000 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL) for ≥1 organism vs. < 10,000 CFU/mL for all organisms; and (3) ≥100,000 CFU/mL for ≥1 organism vs. < 100,000 CFU/mL for all organisms. XGBoost had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for all outcomes assessed: 86.1% for no microbial growth, 89.1% for ≥10,000 CFU/mL for ≥1 organism, and 93.1% for ≥100,000 CFU/mL for ≥1 organism. For encounters where the treating healthcare provider diagnosed with patient with a UTI before urine culture results were known and urine cultures showed either no microbial growth or ≥100,000 CFU/mL, the AUROC was 91%. XGBoost could accurately predict bacteriuria by using only data that were available during the ED patient encounter. These findings suggest that machine learning algorithms could be valuable tools in clinical settings by helping predict culture results and guiding decisions on whether to initiate empiric antibiotic treatment.
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.