Can the application of machine learning to electronic health records guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for suspected urinary tract infection in the Emergency Department?

Background Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a major cause of emergency hospital admissions, but it remains challenging to diagnose them reliably. Application of machine learning (ML) to routine patient data could support clinical decision-making. We developed a ML model for bacteriuria in the ED and evaluated its performance in key patient groups to determine scope for its future use in clinical practice. Methods We used retrospective electronic health records from a large UK hospital (2011-2019). Non-pregnant adults who attended the ED and had a urine sample cultured were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was predominant bacterial growth ≥104 cfu/mL in urine. Predictors included demography, medical history, ED diagnoses, blood tests, and urine flow cytometry. Linear and tree-based models were trained via repeated cross-validation, re-calibrated, and validated on data from 2018/19. Changes in performance were investigated by age, sex, ethnicity, and suspected ED diagnosis, and compared to clinical judgement. Results Among 12,680 included samples, 4,677 (36.9%) showed bacterial growth. Relying primarily on flow cytometry parameters, our best model achieved an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.813 (95% CI 0.792-0.834) in the test data, and achieved both higher sensitivity and specificity compared to proxies of clinician’s judgement. Performance remained stable for white and non-white patients but was lower during a period of laboratory procedure change in 2015, in patients ≥65 years (AUC 0.783, 95% CI 0.752-0.815), in men (AUC 0.758, 95% CI 0.717-0.798). Performance was also slightly reduced in patients with recorded suspicion of UTI (AUC 0.797, 95% CI 0.765-0.828). Conclusions Our results suggest scope for use of ML in ED decision making for suspected UTI but performance varied with patient characteristics. Clinical utility of predictive models for UTI is therefore likely to differ for important patient subgroups including women <65 years, women ≥65 years, and men. Tailored models and decision thresholds may be required that account for differences in achievable performance, background incidence, and risks of infectious complications in these groups. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Protocols ### Funding Statement This work was supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist award CS02016–007 and the Rosetrees & the Stoneygate Trusts M627 (both to Laura Shallcross). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders played no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis or interpretation of data, or writing of the manuscript. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Access to data related to the diagnosis and management of UTI at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham was approved by the UK Health Research Authority (HRA, reference number 17/HRA/3427). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes The data that support the findings of this study are available from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.