Evidence Hub

Urine volatile organic compounds profiling via GC-IMS combined with machine learning: a powerful diagnostic and pathogen differentiation tool for urinary tract infections

Xin Zheng, Xiao-Hang Sun, Wen-Jing Du, Shou-liang Sun, Dongge Chen, Wen-Wen Cheng, Xue-Wei Zhuang, Yan-Li Zhang

Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 2026

258 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background The diagnostic delay associated with standard urine culture necessitates rapid, accurate alternatives for urinary tract infection (UTI) management. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by microbes represent a promising source of metabolic biomarkers for infection diagnosis. Objective To develop and validate a diagnostic model for UTI by integrating urine VOCs profiles obtained via gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS) with clinical features using machine learning. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study of 258 adults with suspected UTI. Clean-catch midstream urine samples were collected for clinical urinalysis, culture (reference standard), and GC-IMS-based VOCs analysis. VOCs and clinical data were used to train and test machine learning models (Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine). Model performance was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and decision curve analysis. Results Among 258 enrolled patients, 152 (58.9%) were culture-positive. We identified 11 differentially expressed VOCs between infected and non-infected groups, with acetic acid, benzaldehyde, and furan being the most significant (Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.05). A Random Forest model integrating both VOCs and clinical features demonstrated superior performance (AUC of 0.914, with an accuracy of 82.1% (95% CI: 71.8-89.8%), sensitivity of 87.0%, specificity of 75.0%, and an F1-score of…

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: 258 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