Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38112900›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2024

Smart Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections: is Artificial Intelligence the Fast-Lane Solution?

Nithesh Naik, Ali Talyshinskii, Dasharathraj K Shetty, B M Zeeshan Hameed, Rano Zhankina, Bhaskar K Somani

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Nithesh NaikDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, Karnataka, India. nithesh.naik@manipal.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0356-7697
Ali TalyshinskiiDepartment of Urology, Astana Medical University, Astana, 010000, Kazakhstan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3521-8937
Dasharathraj K ShettyDepartment of Data Science and Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, Karnataka, India.
B M Zeeshan HameedDepartment of Urology, Father Muller Medical College, Mangalore, 575002, Karnataka, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2904-351X
Rano ZhankinaDepartment of Urology, Astana Medical University, Astana, 010000, Kazakhstan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6170-4325
Bhaskar K SomaniiTRUE-International Training and Research in Urology and Endourology, Manipal, 576104, Karnataka, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6248-6478
Astana Medical University · KZManipal Academy of Higher Education · INFather Muller Medical College Hospital · INUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewArtificial intelligence (AI) can significantly improve physicians' workflow when examining patients with UTI. However, most contemporary reviews are focused on examining the usage of AI with a restricted quantity of data, analyzing only a subset of AI algorithms, or performing narrative work without analyzing all dedicated studies. Given the preceding, the goal of this work was to conduct a mini-review to determine the current state of AI-based systems as a support in UTI diagnosis. RECENT

findingsThere are sufficient publications to comprehend the potential applications of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of UTIs. Existing research in this field, in general, publishes performance metrics that are exemplary. However, upon closer inspection, many of the available publications are burdened with flaws associated with the improper use of artificial intelligence, such as the use of a small number of samples, their lack of heterogeneity, and the absence of external validation. AI-based models cannot be classified as full-fledged physician assistants in diagnosing UTIs due to the fact that these limitations and flaws represent only a portion of all potential obstacles. Instead, such studies should be evaluated as exploratory, with a focus on the importance of future work that complies with all rules governing the use of AI. AI algorithms have demonstrated their potential for UTI diagnosis. However, further studies utilizing large, heterogeneous, prospectively collected datasets, as well as external validations, are required to define the actual clinical workflow value of artificial intelligence.

Indexed as

PhysiciansUrinary Tract InfectionsAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceBenchmarkingHumansArtificial intelligenceDiagnosisSmart diagnosisTract infectionUrology

Identifiers

PMID38112900
PMCPMC10787904
OpenAlexW4389947064

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.