Predictive Utility of Prior Positive Urine Cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A patient's prior urine cultures are often considered when choosing empiric antibiotic therapy for a suspected urinary tract infection. We sought to evaluate how well previous urine cultures predict the identity and susceptibility of organisms in a patient's subsequent urine cultures. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, multicenter, retrospective cohort study, including 22 019 pairs of positive urine cultures from 4351 patients across 2 healthcare systems in Toronto, Ontario, and Chicago, Illinois. We examined the probability of the same organism being identified from the same patient's positive urine culture as a function of time elapsed from the previous positive urine specimen; in cases where the same organism was identified we also examined the likelihood of the organism exhibiting the same or better antimicrobial susceptibility profile. RESULTS: At 4-8 weeks between cultures, the correspondence in isolate identity was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-59%), and at >32 weeks it was 49% (95% CI, 48%-50%), still greater than expected by chance (P < .001). The susceptibility profile was the same or better in 83% (95% CI, 81%-85%) of isolate pairs at 4-8 weeks, and 75% (95% CI, 73%-77%) at >32 weeks, still greater than expected by chance (P < .001). Despite high local rates of ciprofloxacin resistance in urine isolates across all patients (40%; 95% CI, 39.5%-40.5%), ciprofloxacin resistance was <20% among patients with a prior ciprofloxacin sensitive organism and no subsequent fluoroquinolone exposure. CONCLUSIONS: A patient's prior urine culture results are useful in predicting the identity and susceptibility of a current positive urine culture. In areas of high fluoroquinolone resistance, ciprofloxacin can be used empirically when prior urine culture results indicate a ciprofloxacin-susceptible organism and there has been no history of intervening fluoroquinolone use.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".