A fully interpretable machine learning model for increasing the effectiveness of urine screening.
data science
decision tree
machine learning
urinalysis
Journal
American journal of clinical pathology
ISSN: 1943-7722
Titre abrégé: Am J Clin Pathol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0370470
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Dec 2023
01 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
17
05
2023
accepted:
17
07
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
4
9
2023
entrez:
2
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This article addresses the need for effective screening methods to identify negative urine samples before urine culture, reducing the workload, cost, and release time of results in the microbiology laboratory. We try to overcome the limitations of current solutions, which are either too simple, limiting effectiveness (1 or 2 parameters), or too complex, limiting interpretation, trust, and real-world implementation ("black box" machine learning models). The study analyzed 15,312 samples from 10,534 patients with clinical features and the Sysmex Uf-1000i automated analyzer data. Decision tree (DT) models with or without lookahead strategy were used, as they offer a transparent set of logical rules that can be easily understood by medical professionals and implemented into automated analyzers. The best model achieved a sensitivity of 94.5% and classified negative samples based on age, bacteria, mucus, and 2 scattering parameters. The model reduced the workload by an additional 16% compared to the current procedure in the laboratory, with an estimated financial impact of €40,000/y considering 15,000 samples/y. Identified logical rules have a scientific rationale matched to existing knowledge in the literature. Overall, this study provides an effective and interpretable screening method for urine culture in microbiology laboratories, using data from the Sysmex UF-1000i automated analyzer. Unlike other machine learning models, our model is interpretable, generating trust and enabling real-world implementation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37658807
pii: 7258967
doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqad099
pmc: PMC10691191
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
620-632Informations de copyright
© American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2023.
Références
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Mar 09;11(3):
pubmed: 33803202
J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Nov;48(11):3990-6
pubmed: 20739491
Clin Chim Acta. 2016 May 1;456:31-35
pubmed: 26921459
Clin Chim Acta. 2018 Sep;484:171-178
pubmed: 29803898
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Mar 26;58(4):597-604
pubmed: 31860463
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Oct 12;59(3):619-624
pubmed: 33068381
Clin Chim Acta. 2010 Aug 5;411(15-16):1137-42
pubmed: 20359474
J Med Syst. 2002 Oct;26(5):445-63
pubmed: 12182209
New Microbiol. 2008 Oct;31(4):501-5
pubmed: 19123305
BMC Urol. 2021 Feb 12;21(1):24
pubmed: 33579236
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 7;13(3):e0194085
pubmed: 29513742
J Appl Microbiol. 2017 Feb;122(2):473-480
pubmed: 27860075
J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Sep;48(9):3117-21
pubmed: 20592157
J Microbiol Methods. 2017 Jun;137:14-18
pubmed: 28330780
Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Apr 27;10(2):e0176921
pubmed: 35234514
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017 Sep;36(9):1691-1703
pubmed: 28386705
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009 Oct;65(2):103-7
pubmed: 19748419
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Aug 23;19(1):171
pubmed: 31443706
Clin Biochem. 2016 Dec;49(18):1346-1350
pubmed: 27784640
Mol Cell Proteomics. 2019 Dec;18(12):2492-2505
pubmed: 31585987
Clin Lab. 2018 Sep 1;64(9):1395-1401
pubmed: 30274017
J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Mar;49(3):1025-9
pubmed: 21248088
World J Urol. 2013 Jun;31(3):547-51
pubmed: 22588552