Prediction of Antibiotic Resistance in Patients With a Urinary Tract Infection: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The early prediction of antibiotic resistance in patients with a urinary tract infection (UTI) is important to guide appropriate antibiotic therapy selection. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to predict antibiotic resistance in patients with a UTI. Additionally, we aimed to interpret the machine learning models we developed. METHODS: The electronic medical records of patients who were admitted to Yongin Severance Hospital, South Korea were used. A total of 71 features extracted from patients' admission, diagnosis, prescription, and microbiology records were used for classification. UTI pathogens were classified as either sensitive or resistant to cephalosporin, piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP), carbapenem, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), and fluoroquinolone. To analyze how each variable contributed to the machine learning model's predictions of antibiotic resistance, we used the Shapley Additive Explanations method. Finally, a prototype machine learning-based clinical decision support system was proposed to provide clinicians the resistance probabilities for each antibiotic. RESULTS: The data set included 3535, 737, 708, 1582, and 1365 samples for cephalosporin, TZP, TMP-SMX, fluoroquinolone, and carbapenem resistance prediction models, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of the random forest models were 0.777 (95% CI 0.775-0.779), 0.864 (95% CI 0.862-0.867), 0.877 (95% CI 0.874-0.880), 0.881 (95% CI 0.879-0.882), and 0.884 (95% CI 0.884-0.885) in the training set and 0.638 (95% CI 0.635-0.642), 0.630 (95% CI 0.626-0.634), 0.665 (95% CI 0.659-0.671), 0.670 (95% CI 0.666-0.673), and 0.721 (95% CI 0.718-0.724) in the test set for predicting resistance to cephalosporin, TZP, carbapenem, TMP-SMX, and fluoroquinolone, respectively. The number of previous visits, first culture after admission, chronic lower respiratory diseases, administration of drugs before infection, and exposure time to these drugs were found to be important variables for predicting antibiotic resistance. CONCLUSIONS: The study results demonstrated the potential of machine learning to predict antibiotic resistance in patients with a UTI. Machine learning can assist clinicians in making decisions regarding the selection of appropriate antibiotic therapy in patients with a UTI.
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) | 0.000 | 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".