IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0000261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can the application of machine learning to electronic health records guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for suspected urinary tract infection in the Emergency Department?

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Rockenschaub
  • Martin J Gill
  • Dave McNulty
  • Orlagh Carroll
  • Nick Freemantle
  • Laura Shallcross

Abstract

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a major cause of emergency hospital admissions, but it remains challenging to diagnose them reliably. Application of machine learning (ML) to routine patient data could support clinical decision-making. We developed a ML model predicting bacteriuria in the ED and evaluated its performance in key patient groups to determine scope for its future use to improve UTI diagnosis and thus guide antibiotic prescribing decisions in clinical practice. We used retrospective electronic health records from a large UK hospital (2011–2019). Non-pregnant adults who attended the ED and had a urine sample cultured were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was predominant bacterial growth ≥104 cfu/mL in urine. Predictors included demography, medical history, ED diagnoses, blood tests, and urine flow cytometry. Linear and tree-based models were trained via repeated cross-validation, re-calibrated, and validated on data from 2018/19. Changes in performance were investigated by age, sex, ethnicity, and suspected ED diagnosis, and compared to clinical judgement. Among 12,680 included samples, 4,677 (36.9%) showed bacterial growth. Relying primarily on flow cytometry parameters, our best model achieved an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.813 (95% CI 0.792–0.834) in the test data, and achieved both higher sensitivity and specificity compared to proxies of clinician’s judgement. Performance remained stable for white and non-white patients but was lower during a period of laboratory procedure change in 2015, in patients ≥65 years (AUC 0.783, 95% CI 0.752–0.815), and in men (AUC 0.758, 95% CI 0.717–0.798). Performance was also slightly reduced in patients with recorded suspicion of UTI (AUC 0.797, 95% CI 0.765–0.828). Our results suggest scope for use of ML to inform antibiotic prescribing decisions by improving diagnosis of suspected UTI in the ED, but performance varied with patient characteristics. Clinical utility of predictive models for UTI is therefore likely to differ for important patient subgroups including women

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Rockenschaub & Martin J Gill & Dave McNulty & Orlagh Carroll & Nick Freemantle & Laura Shallcross, 2023. "Can the application of machine learning to electronic health records guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for suspected urinary tract infection in the Emergency Department?," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(6), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000261
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000261
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000261
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000261&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000261?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.