Contrast between traditional and machine learning algorithms based on a urine culture predictive model: a multicenter retrospective study in patients with urinary calculi.
Logistic regression
bacteriuria
early diagnosis
machine learning
urinary calculi
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
03
09
2021
accepted:
18
01
2022
entrez:
14
3
2022
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
15
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Quick and accurate identification of urinary calculi patients with positive urinary cultures is critical to the choice of the treatment strategy. Predictive models based on machine learning algorithms provide a new way to solve this problem. This study aims to determine the predictive value of machine learning algorithms using a urine culture predictive model based on patients with urinary calculi. Data were collected from four clinical centers in the period of June 2016, to May 2019. 2,054 cases were included in the study. The dataset was randomly split into ratios of 5:5, 6:4, and 7:3 for model construction and validation. Predictive models of urine culture outcomes were constructed and validated by logistic regression, random forest, adaboost, and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) models. Each ratio's construction and verification were repeated five times independently for cross-validation. The Matthews correlation coefficient (MMC), F1-score, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with the area under curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the performance of each prediction model. The additive net reclassification index (NRI) and absolute NRI were used to assess the predictive capabilities of the models. Four prediction models of urinary culture results in patients with urinary calculi were constructed. The mean AUCs of the logistic regression, random forest, adaboost, and GBDT models were 0.761 (95% CI: 0.753-0.770), 0.790 (95% CI: 0.782-0.798), 0.779 (95% CI: 0.766-0.791), and 0.831 (95% CI: 0.823-0.840), respectively. Moreover, the average MMC and F1-score of GBDT model was 0.460 and 0.588, which was improved compared to logistic regression model of 0.335 and 0.501. The additive NRI and absolute NRI of the GBDT and logistic regression models were 0.124 (95% CI: 0.106-0.142) and 0.065 (95% CI: 0.060-0.069), respectively. Our results indicate that machine learning algorithms may be useful tools for urine culture outcome prediction in patients with urinary calculi because they exhibit superior performance compared with the logistic regression model.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Quick and accurate identification of urinary calculi patients with positive urinary cultures is critical to the choice of the treatment strategy. Predictive models based on machine learning algorithms provide a new way to solve this problem. This study aims to determine the predictive value of machine learning algorithms using a urine culture predictive model based on patients with urinary calculi.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Data were collected from four clinical centers in the period of June 2016, to May 2019. 2,054 cases were included in the study. The dataset was randomly split into ratios of 5:5, 6:4, and 7:3 for model construction and validation. Predictive models of urine culture outcomes were constructed and validated by logistic regression, random forest, adaboost, and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) models. Each ratio's construction and verification were repeated five times independently for cross-validation. The Matthews correlation coefficient (MMC), F1-score, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with the area under curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the performance of each prediction model. The additive net reclassification index (NRI) and absolute NRI were used to assess the predictive capabilities of the models.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Four prediction models of urinary culture results in patients with urinary calculi were constructed. The mean AUCs of the logistic regression, random forest, adaboost, and GBDT models were 0.761 (95% CI: 0.753-0.770), 0.790 (95% CI: 0.782-0.798), 0.779 (95% CI: 0.766-0.791), and 0.831 (95% CI: 0.823-0.840), respectively. Moreover, the average MMC and F1-score of GBDT model was 0.460 and 0.588, which was improved compared to logistic regression model of 0.335 and 0.501. The additive NRI and absolute NRI of the GBDT and logistic regression models were 0.124 (95% CI: 0.106-0.142) and 0.065 (95% CI: 0.060-0.069), respectively.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Our results indicate that machine learning algorithms may be useful tools for urine culture outcome prediction in patients with urinary calculi because they exhibit superior performance compared with the logistic regression model.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35280663
doi: 10.21037/tau-21-780
pii: tau-11-02-139
pmc: PMC8899151
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
139-148Informations de copyright
2022 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tau.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tau-21-780/coif). Xuesong Li and Liqun Zhou both serve as the unpaid editorial board members of Translational Andrology and Urology. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 4;380(14):1347-1358
pubmed: 30943338
Lab Chip. 2018 Aug 7;18(16):2441-2452
pubmed: 30014076
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Apr 02;20(7):
pubmed: 30986955
Lab Chip. 2020 Jan 21;20(2):384-393
pubmed: 31853527
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016 Jun;4(6):487-97
pubmed: 27133172
J Urol. 2018 Oct;200(4):829-836
pubmed: 29673945
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 Dec 4;112(49):837-47; quiz 848
pubmed: 26754121
Methods Mol Biol. 2007;404:273-301
pubmed: 18450055
ACS Sens. 2019 Apr 26;4(4):961-967
pubmed: 30869519
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Nov;108(11):1723-30
pubmed: 24169273
Eur Heart J. 2017 Feb 14;38(7):500-507
pubmed: 27252451
Int J Urol. 2018 Mar;25(3):212-218
pubmed: 29247553
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019 Mar;40(3):281-286
pubmed: 30786940
Stat Med. 2008 Jan 30;27(2):157-72; discussion 207-12
pubmed: 17569110
J Emerg Med. 2014 Jan;46(1):71-6
pubmed: 24140018
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jun;110:12-22
pubmed: 30763612
BMC Med. 2015 Jan 06;13:1
pubmed: 25563062
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jun;105(6):1224-6
pubmed: 20523307
Jpn J Radiol. 2018 Apr;36(4):257-272
pubmed: 29498017
Int J Urol. 2019 Jan;26(1):69-74
pubmed: 30221416
Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Oct;18(10):1099-104
pubmed: 21996075
Stat Med. 2016 Oct 15;35(23):4124-35
pubmed: 27193918
World J Urol. 2018 Dec;36(12):1943-1952
pubmed: 29713755
Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment. 2017 Oct - Dec;10(4):216
pubmed: 28666603
World J Urol. 2019 Sep;37(9):1973-1979
pubmed: 30515594