Loading…

Predicting urinary tract infections in the emergency department with machine learning

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common emergency department (ED) diagnosis with reported high diagnostic error rates. Because a urine culture, part of the gold standard for diagnosis of UTI, is usually not available for 24-48 hours after an ED visit, diagnosis and treatment decisions are based on...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2018-03, Vol.13 (3), p.e0194085-e0194085
Main Authors: Taylor, R Andrew, Moore, Christopher L, Cheung, Kei-Hoi, Brandt, Cynthia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-238575f4a7c1d0e7f5f228309029fcf920abc85284bf49d1bcf8fe8c2b4d59103
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-238575f4a7c1d0e7f5f228309029fcf920abc85284bf49d1bcf8fe8c2b4d59103
container_end_page e0194085
container_issue 3
container_start_page e0194085
container_title PloS one
container_volume 13
creator Taylor, R Andrew
Moore, Christopher L
Cheung, Kei-Hoi
Brandt, Cynthia
description Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common emergency department (ED) diagnosis with reported high diagnostic error rates. Because a urine culture, part of the gold standard for diagnosis of UTI, is usually not available for 24-48 hours after an ED visit, diagnosis and treatment decisions are based on symptoms, physical findings, and other laboratory results, potentially leading to overutilization, antibiotic resistance, and delayed treatment. Previous research has demonstrated inadequate diagnostic performance for both individual laboratory tests and prediction tools. Our aim, was to train, validate, and compare machine-learning based predictive models for UTI in a large diverse set of ED patients. Single-center, multi-site, retrospective cohort analysis of 80,387 adult ED visits with urine culture results and UTI symptoms. We developed models for UTI prediction with six machine learning algorithms using demographic information, vitals, laboratory results, medications, past medical history, chief complaint, and structured historical and physical exam findings. Models were developed with both the full set of 211 variables and a reduced set of 10 variables. UTI predictions were compared between models and to proxies of provider judgment (documentation of UTI diagnosis and antibiotic administration). The machine learning models had an area under the curve ranging from 0.826-0.904, with extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) the top performing algorithm for both full and reduced models. The XGBoost full and reduced models demonstrated greatly improved specificity when compared to the provider judgment proxy of UTI diagnosis OR antibiotic administration with specificity differences of 33.3 (31.3-34.3) and 29.6 (28.5-30.6), while also demonstrating superior sensitivity when compared to documentation of UTI diagnosis with sensitivity differences of 38.7 (38.1-39.4) and 33.2 (32.5-33.9). In the admission and discharge cohorts using the full XGboost model, approximately 1 in 4 patients (4109/15855) would be re-categorized from a false positive to a true negative and approximately 1 in 11 patients (1372/15855) would be re-categorized from a false negative to a true positive. The best performing machine learning algorithm, XGBoost, accurately diagnosed positive urine culture results, and outperformed previously developed models in the literature and several proxies for provider judgment. Future prospective validation is warranted.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0194085
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_3db907c41ce74bc2a7ea482db029c683</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A530177778</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_3db907c41ce74bc2a7ea482db029c683</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A530177778</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-238575f4a7c1d0e7f5f228309029fcf920abc85284bf49d1bcf8fe8c2b4d59103</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkk1v3CAQhq2oVb7af1BVPlW97JbPNVwqRVGTRorUHpozwniwWWHYAk6Vf1-S3UQJF0bDzMM78DbNJ4zWmHb42zYuKWi_3sUAa4QlQ4IfNadYUrLaEETfvYpPmrOctwhxKjab4-aESF4ZjJw2d78TDM4UF8Z2SS7o9NCWpE1pXbBQ8zHkGrZlghZmSCME89AOsNOpzBBK-8-VqZ21mVyA1oNOoaI-NO-t9hk-Hvbz5u7qx5_Ln6vbX9c3lxe3K8MRLytCBe-4ZbozeEDQWW4JERRJRKQ1VhKkeyM4Eay3TA64N1ZYEIb0bOASI3re3Oy5Q9RbtUturvpV1E49JWIaVdXpjAdFh16izjBsoGO9IboDzQQZ-nqX2QhaWd_3rN3SzzCYOlzS_g307UlwkxrjveKCYUFYBXw9AFL8u0AuanbZgPc6QFyyIggTjBkivJZ-2ZeOukqbQPsy5eiXp-dWF5wi3NUlaiHbF5oUc05gX_RgpB5toA42UI82UAcb1LbPr2d5aXr-d_ofhQWzYA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2012114025</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Predicting urinary tract infections in the emergency department with machine learning</title><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><creator>Taylor, R Andrew ; Moore, Christopher L ; Cheung, Kei-Hoi ; Brandt, Cynthia</creator><creatorcontrib>Taylor, R Andrew ; Moore, Christopher L ; Cheung, Kei-Hoi ; Brandt, Cynthia</creatorcontrib><description>Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common emergency department (ED) diagnosis with reported high diagnostic error rates. Because a urine culture, part of the gold standard for diagnosis of UTI, is usually not available for 24-48 hours after an ED visit, diagnosis and treatment decisions are based on symptoms, physical findings, and other laboratory results, potentially leading to overutilization, antibiotic resistance, and delayed treatment. Previous research has demonstrated inadequate diagnostic performance for both individual laboratory tests and prediction tools. Our aim, was to train, validate, and compare machine-learning based predictive models for UTI in a large diverse set of ED patients. Single-center, multi-site, retrospective cohort analysis of 80,387 adult ED visits with urine culture results and UTI symptoms. We developed models for UTI prediction with six machine learning algorithms using demographic information, vitals, laboratory results, medications, past medical history, chief complaint, and structured historical and physical exam findings. Models were developed with both the full set of 211 variables and a reduced set of 10 variables. UTI predictions were compared between models and to proxies of provider judgment (documentation of UTI diagnosis and antibiotic administration). The machine learning models had an area under the curve ranging from 0.826-0.904, with extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) the top performing algorithm for both full and reduced models. The XGBoost full and reduced models demonstrated greatly improved specificity when compared to the provider judgment proxy of UTI diagnosis OR antibiotic administration with specificity differences of 33.3 (31.3-34.3) and 29.6 (28.5-30.6), while also demonstrating superior sensitivity when compared to documentation of UTI diagnosis with sensitivity differences of 38.7 (38.1-39.4) and 33.2 (32.5-33.9). In the admission and discharge cohorts using the full XGboost model, approximately 1 in 4 patients (4109/15855) would be re-categorized from a false positive to a true negative and approximately 1 in 11 patients (1372/15855) would be re-categorized from a false negative to a true positive. The best performing machine learning algorithm, XGBoost, accurately diagnosed positive urine culture results, and outperformed previously developed models in the literature and several proxies for provider judgment. Future prospective validation is warranted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194085</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29513742</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Biology and Life Sciences ; Care and treatment ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Diagnosis ; Hospital emergency services ; Machine learning ; Management ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Physical Sciences ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Urinary tract infections</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-03, Vol.13 (3), p.e0194085-e0194085</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Taylor et al 2018 Taylor et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-238575f4a7c1d0e7f5f228309029fcf920abc85284bf49d1bcf8fe8c2b4d59103</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-238575f4a7c1d0e7f5f228309029fcf920abc85284bf49d1bcf8fe8c2b4d59103</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9082-6644</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841824/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841824/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27900,27901,36989,53765,53767</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29513742$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Taylor, R Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moore, Christopher L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Kei-Hoi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brandt, Cynthia</creatorcontrib><title>Predicting urinary tract infections in the emergency department with machine learning</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common emergency department (ED) diagnosis with reported high diagnostic error rates. Because a urine culture, part of the gold standard for diagnosis of UTI, is usually not available for 24-48 hours after an ED visit, diagnosis and treatment decisions are based on symptoms, physical findings, and other laboratory results, potentially leading to overutilization, antibiotic resistance, and delayed treatment. Previous research has demonstrated inadequate diagnostic performance for both individual laboratory tests and prediction tools. Our aim, was to train, validate, and compare machine-learning based predictive models for UTI in a large diverse set of ED patients. Single-center, multi-site, retrospective cohort analysis of 80,387 adult ED visits with urine culture results and UTI symptoms. We developed models for UTI prediction with six machine learning algorithms using demographic information, vitals, laboratory results, medications, past medical history, chief complaint, and structured historical and physical exam findings. Models were developed with both the full set of 211 variables and a reduced set of 10 variables. UTI predictions were compared between models and to proxies of provider judgment (documentation of UTI diagnosis and antibiotic administration). The machine learning models had an area under the curve ranging from 0.826-0.904, with extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) the top performing algorithm for both full and reduced models. The XGBoost full and reduced models demonstrated greatly improved specificity when compared to the provider judgment proxy of UTI diagnosis OR antibiotic administration with specificity differences of 33.3 (31.3-34.3) and 29.6 (28.5-30.6), while also demonstrating superior sensitivity when compared to documentation of UTI diagnosis with sensitivity differences of 38.7 (38.1-39.4) and 33.2 (32.5-33.9). In the admission and discharge cohorts using the full XGboost model, approximately 1 in 4 patients (4109/15855) would be re-categorized from a false positive to a true negative and approximately 1 in 11 patients (1372/15855) would be re-categorized from a false negative to a true positive. The best performing machine learning algorithm, XGBoost, accurately diagnosed positive urine culture results, and outperformed previously developed models in the literature and several proxies for provider judgment. Future prospective validation is warranted.</description><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Hospital emergency services</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Urinary tract infections</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkk1v3CAQhq2oVb7af1BVPlW97JbPNVwqRVGTRorUHpozwniwWWHYAk6Vf1-S3UQJF0bDzMM78DbNJ4zWmHb42zYuKWi_3sUAa4QlQ4IfNadYUrLaEETfvYpPmrOctwhxKjab4-aESF4ZjJw2d78TDM4UF8Z2SS7o9NCWpE1pXbBQ8zHkGrZlghZmSCME89AOsNOpzBBK-8-VqZ21mVyA1oNOoaI-NO-t9hk-Hvbz5u7qx5_Ln6vbX9c3lxe3K8MRLytCBe-4ZbozeEDQWW4JERRJRKQ1VhKkeyM4Eay3TA64N1ZYEIb0bOASI3re3Oy5Q9RbtUturvpV1E49JWIaVdXpjAdFh16izjBsoGO9IboDzQQZ-nqX2QhaWd_3rN3SzzCYOlzS_g307UlwkxrjveKCYUFYBXw9AFL8u0AuanbZgPc6QFyyIggTjBkivJZ-2ZeOukqbQPsy5eiXp-dWF5wi3NUlaiHbF5oUc05gX_RgpB5toA42UI82UAcb1LbPr2d5aXr-d_ofhQWzYA</recordid><startdate>20180307</startdate><enddate>20180307</enddate><creator>Taylor, R Andrew</creator><creator>Moore, Christopher L</creator><creator>Cheung, Kei-Hoi</creator><creator>Brandt, Cynthia</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9082-6644</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180307</creationdate><title>Predicting urinary tract infections in the emergency department with machine learning</title><author>Taylor, R Andrew ; Moore, Christopher L ; Cheung, Kei-Hoi ; Brandt, Cynthia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-238575f4a7c1d0e7f5f228309029fcf920abc85284bf49d1bcf8fe8c2b4d59103</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Hospital emergency services</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Urinary tract infections</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Taylor, R Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moore, Christopher L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Kei-Hoi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brandt, Cynthia</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Taylor, R Andrew</au><au>Moore, Christopher L</au><au>Cheung, Kei-Hoi</au><au>Brandt, Cynthia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Predicting urinary tract infections in the emergency department with machine learning</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-03-07</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e0194085</spage><epage>e0194085</epage><pages>e0194085-e0194085</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common emergency department (ED) diagnosis with reported high diagnostic error rates. Because a urine culture, part of the gold standard for diagnosis of UTI, is usually not available for 24-48 hours after an ED visit, diagnosis and treatment decisions are based on symptoms, physical findings, and other laboratory results, potentially leading to overutilization, antibiotic resistance, and delayed treatment. Previous research has demonstrated inadequate diagnostic performance for both individual laboratory tests and prediction tools. Our aim, was to train, validate, and compare machine-learning based predictive models for UTI in a large diverse set of ED patients. Single-center, multi-site, retrospective cohort analysis of 80,387 adult ED visits with urine culture results and UTI symptoms. We developed models for UTI prediction with six machine learning algorithms using demographic information, vitals, laboratory results, medications, past medical history, chief complaint, and structured historical and physical exam findings. Models were developed with both the full set of 211 variables and a reduced set of 10 variables. UTI predictions were compared between models and to proxies of provider judgment (documentation of UTI diagnosis and antibiotic administration). The machine learning models had an area under the curve ranging from 0.826-0.904, with extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) the top performing algorithm for both full and reduced models. The XGBoost full and reduced models demonstrated greatly improved specificity when compared to the provider judgment proxy of UTI diagnosis OR antibiotic administration with specificity differences of 33.3 (31.3-34.3) and 29.6 (28.5-30.6), while also demonstrating superior sensitivity when compared to documentation of UTI diagnosis with sensitivity differences of 38.7 (38.1-39.4) and 33.2 (32.5-33.9). In the admission and discharge cohorts using the full XGboost model, approximately 1 in 4 patients (4109/15855) would be re-categorized from a false positive to a true negative and approximately 1 in 11 patients (1372/15855) would be re-categorized from a false negative to a true positive. The best performing machine learning algorithm, XGBoost, accurately diagnosed positive urine culture results, and outperformed previously developed models in the literature and several proxies for provider judgment. Future prospective validation is warranted.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>29513742</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0194085</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9082-6644</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2018-03, Vol.13 (3), p.e0194085-e0194085
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_3db907c41ce74bc2a7ea482db029c683
source PubMed (Medline); Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)
subjects Biology and Life Sciences
Care and treatment
Computer and Information Sciences
Diagnosis
Hospital emergency services
Machine learning
Management
Medicine and Health Sciences
Physical Sciences
Research and Analysis Methods
Urinary tract infections
title Predicting urinary tract infections in the emergency department with machine learning
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-24T17%3A36%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Predicting%20urinary%20tract%20infections%20in%20the%20emergency%20department%20with%20machine%20learning&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Taylor,%20R%20Andrew&rft.date=2018-03-07&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e0194085&rft.epage=e0194085&rft.pages=e0194085-e0194085&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0194085&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA530177778%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-238575f4a7c1d0e7f5f228309029fcf920abc85284bf49d1bcf8fe8c2b4d59103%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2012114025&rft_id=info:pmid/29513742&rft_galeid=A530177778&rfr_iscdi=true