Evidence Hub

Predicting antibiotic susceptibility in urinary tract infection with artificial intelligence—model performance in a multi-centre cohort

A. L. Lee, C. C. To, R. Chan, J. Wong, Grace Chung-Yan Lui, Ingrid Yu Ying Cheung, V. Chow, C. Lai et al.

JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance, 2024

26 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective To develop an artificial intelligence model to predict an antimicrobial susceptibility pattern in patients with urinary tract infection (UTI). Materials and methods 26 087 adult patients with culture-proven UTI during 2015–2020 from a university teaching hospital and three community hospitals in Hong Kong were included. Cases with asymptomatic bacteriuria (absence of diagnosis code of UTI, or absence of leucocytes in urine microscopy) were excluded. Patients from 2015 to 2019 were included in the training set, while patients from the year 2020 were included as the test set. Three first-line antibiotics were chosen for prediction of susceptibility in the bacterial isolates causing UTI: namely nitrofurantoin, ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin-clavulanate. Baseline epidemiological factors, previous antimicrobial consumption, medical history and previous culture results were included as features. Logistic regression and random forest were applied to the dataset. Models were evaluated by F1-score and area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC). Results Random forest was the best algorithm in predicting susceptibility of the three antibiotics (nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin-clavulanate and ciprofloxacin). The AUC-ROC values were 0.941, 0.939 and 0.937, respectively. The F1 scores were 0.938, 0.928 and 0.906 respectively. Conclusions Random forest model may aid judicious empirical antibiotics use in UTI. Given the reasonable performance and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 26 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free