Evidence mapPaperPMID 39789596Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Prediction of urinary tract infection using machine learning methods: a study for finding the most-informative variables.

Sajjad Farashi, Hossein Emad Momtaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Large Models for Small Tables: Adapting Tabular Foundation Models to EHR Data.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
  3. Foundation Model-Guided Synthetic EHR Release: Performance Enhancement with Privacy Preservation.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Sajjad FarashiNeurophysiology Research Center, Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Avicenna Health Research Institute, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. sajjad_farashi@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5082-6391
Hossein Emad MomtazDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Ekbatan Hospital, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. hemmtz@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6865-7143

Funding

Hamadan University of Medical Sciences 1403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrinary tract infection (UTI) is a frequent health-threatening condition. Early reliable diagnosis of UTI helps to prevent misuse or overuse of antibiotics and hence prevent antibiotic resistance. The gold standard for UTI diagnosis is urine culture which is a time-consuming and also an error prone method. In this regard, complementary methods are demanded. In the recent decade, machine learning strategies that employ mathematical models on a dataset to extract the most informative hidden information are the center of interest for prediction and diagnosis purposes.

methodIn this study, machine learning approaches were used for finding the important variables for a reliable prediction of UTI. Several types of machines including classical and deep learning models were used for this purpose.

resultsEighteen selected features from urine test, blood test, and demographic data were found as the most informative features. Factors extracted from urine such as WBC, nitrite, leukocyte, clarity, color, blood, bilirubin, urobilinogen, and factors extracted from blood test like mean platelet volume, lymphocyte, glucose, red blood cell distribution width, and potassium, and demographic data such as age, gender and previous use of antibiotics were the determinative factors for UTI prediction. An ensemble combination of XGBoost, decision tree, and light gradient boosting machines with a voting scheme obtained the highest accuracy for UTI prediction (AUC: 88.53 (0.25), accuracy: 85.64 (0.20)%), according to the selected features. Furthermore, the results showed the importance of gender and age for UTI prediction.

conclusionThis study highlighted the potential of machine learning strategies for UTI prediction.

Indexed as

Machine LearningUrinary Tract InfectionsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultFeature extractionMachine learningPredictionUrinary tract infection

Identifiers

PMID39789596
PMCPMC11715496

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.