Can Urine Clarity Exclude the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of clear urine by visual inspection with the absence of significant bacteruria, and to compare it with standard urinalysis. METHODS: The study was performed in the emergency department of Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. It was a prospective, convenience sample of children <21 years of age who had catheterized or midstream clean-catch urine specimen collected for culture. Clinical findings including the presence or absence of fever, abdominal pain, dysuria, frequency, and urgency were collected for each patient. Urine was visually assessed for clarity by 2 independent observers using a standardized technique. Standard laboratory urinalysis and microscopy were also performed on all specimens. A positive urine culture was defined as >/=10(4) colony-forming unit (CFU)/mL of a urinary pathogen if obtained by catheterization and >/=10(5) CFU/mL if obtained by midstream. RESULTS: Samples were obtained from 159 patients ranging in age from 4 weeks to 19 years. Females comprised 77% of the patients. One hundred ten of the samples (69%) were clear to visual inspection. There were a total of 29 positive cultures; however, 3 were in children with clear urine. The finding of clear urine on visual inspection had a negative predictive value of 97.3%. These results were similar to those obtained with standard urinalysis. CONCLUSION: Clear urine on visual inspection cannot completely eliminate the possibility that a child has a urinary tract infection. However, it is a reproducible test that offers the advantages of being simple, fast, and inexpensive. The finding of clear urine should be considered a reasonable and relatively effective bedside screen for the presence of a urinary tract infection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".