CLINICAL RESEARCH
Comparing machine learning models for rule-out prediction of sexually transmitted infections in male patients: a retrospective study using urinalysis and symptom data
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Aydın Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey
2
Department of Urology, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey
3
Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Aydın Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey
Submission date: 2025-11-09
Final revision date: 2025-11-26
Acceptance date: 2025-12-13
Online publication date: 2025-12-30
Corresponding author
Tuncer Bahçeci
Department of Urology
Faculty of Medicine
Aydın Adnan Menderes University
Aydın, Turkey
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are a major public health issue, and prompt diagnosis is crucial for controlling infections. Multiplex PCR-based nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are the gold standard for diagnosis, especially for identifying pathogens involved in gonococcal and nongonococcal urethritis. However, their frequent use in low-risk or asymptomatic men increases laboratory workload and healthcare expenses.
Material and methods:
This study employed machine learning algorithms to develop and validate a rule-out model designed to reduce unnecessary NAAT requests. Data from 2020 to 2024 (n = 455) were used for model training, and data from 2025 (n = 75) served as an external temporal test set. Model thresholds were optimized to ensure high sensitivity (≥ 95%) and a high negative predictive value (NPV ≥ 90%), emphasizing patient safety and reducing the risk of false negatives. The selected rule-out threshold (0.079) represented the lowest predicted-probability cut-point achieving these safety criteria and was applied to the independent test cohort. Data were collected from our institutional database. Five supervised models – XGBoost, logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), and random forest – were built and assessed.
Results:
XGBoost achieved the best rule-out performance (AUC = 0.86; sensitivity = 0.98; NPV = 0.91) while safely deferring NAAT testing in 44.2% of patients. Urinary WBC, leukocyte esterase, and nitrite were the strongest positive predictors, whereas absence of inflammation and asymptomatic presentation favored test deferral.
Conclusions:
This model can assist clinicians in identifying male patients likely to test negative on NAATs, supporting diagnostic stewardship through cost-effective, data-driven decision-making.
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Global progress report on HIV, viral hepatitis and sexually transmitted infections, 2021. Accountability for the global health sector strategies 2016–2021: actions for impact. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
2.
Moi H, Blee K, Horner PJ. Management of non-gonococcal urethritis. BMC Infect Dis 2015; 15: 294.
3.
Brunner H, Weidner W, Schiefer HG. Studies on the role of Ureaplasma urealyticum and Mycoplasma hominis in prostatitis. J Infect Dis 1983; 147: 807-13.
4.
Paira DA, Molina G, Tissera AD, Olivera C, Molina RI, Motrich RD. Results from a large cross-sectional study assessing Chlamydia trachomatis, Ureaplasma spp. and Mycoplasma hominis urogenital infections in patients with primary infertility. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 113655.
5.
Martin DH. Urethritis in males. In: Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Holmes KK, Sparling PF, Stamm WE (eds.). McGraw-Hill, New York 2008; 1107-26.
6.
Bradshaw CS, Tabrizi SN, Read TR, et al. Etiologies of nongonococcal urethritis: bacteria, viruses, and the association with orogenital exposure. J Infect Dis 2006; 193: 336-45.
7.
Workowski KA, Bachmann LH, Chan PA, et al. Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recomm Rep 2021; 70: 1-187.
8.
Martin DH. Genital mycoplasmas: Mycoplasma genitalium, Mycoplasma hominis, and Ureaplasma species. In: Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. Bennett JE, Dolin R, Blaser MJ (eds.). Elsevier, Philadelphia 2020; 2340-3.
9.
Mena L, Wang X, Mroczkowski TF, Martin DH. Mycoplasma genitalium infections in asymptomatic men and men with urethritis attending a sexually transmitted diseases clinic in New Orleans. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35: 1167-73.
10.
Yasynetskyi M, Banyra O, Nikitin O, et al. Mixed sexually transmitted infections in infertile couples: empirical treatment and influence on semen quality. Recent Adv Antiinfect Drug Discov 2021; 16: 227-36.
11.
Horner P, Donders G, Cusini M, Gomberg M, Jensen JS, Unemo M. Should we be testing for urogenital Mycoplasma hominis, Ureaplasma parvum and Ureaplasma urealyticum in men and women? A position statement from the European STI Guidelines Editorial Board. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2018; 32: 1845-51.
12.
British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH). Position statement on the inappropriate use of multiplex testing platforms and suboptimal antibiotic treatment regimens for bacterial sexually transmitted infections. London: BASHH; 2021. Available from:
https://www.bashh.org/news/143.... Accessed 04 Nov 2025.
13.
Kranz J, Bartoletti R, Bruyère F, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on urological infections: summary of the 2024 guidelines. Eur Urol 2024; 86: 27-4.
14.
Sheele JM, Campbell RL, Jones DD. Machine learning to predict bacteriuria in the emergency department. Sci Rep 2025; 15: 31087.
15.
Li J, Cheng Y, Tang W, Jing Y, Chen Y, Tu S. Machine learning prediction of early hypothermia in sepsis patients. Arch Med Sci 2025; Epub 2025 Oct 29. doi: 10.5114/aoms/209620.
16.
Del Ben F, Da Col G, Cobârzan D, et al. A fully interpretable machine learning model for increasing the effectiveness of urine screening. Am J Clin Pathol 2023; 160: 620-32.
17.
Xu X, Yu Z, Ge Z, et al. Web-based risk prediction tool for an individual’s risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections using machine learning algorithms: development and external validation study. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24: e37850.
18.
Stamm WE, Hooton TM. Management of urinary tract infections in adults. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1328-34.
19.
Lammers RL, Gibson S, Kovacs D, Sears W, Strachan G. Comparison of test characteristics of urine dipstick and urinalysis at various test cutoff points. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38: 505-12.
20.
Wang G, Lam KM, Deng Z, Choi KS. Prediction of mortality after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer by machine learning techniques. Comput Biol Med 2015; 63: 124-32.
21.
Altıntaş E, Şahin A, Erol S, et al. Navigating the gray zone: machine learning can differentiate malignancy in PI-RADS 3 lesions. Urol Oncol 2025; 43: 195.e11-e20.
22.
Altıntaş E, Şahin A, Babayev H, et al. Machine learning algorithm predicts urethral stricture following transurethral prostate resection. World J Urol 2024; 42: 324.
23.
Koç S, Tomak L, Karabulut E. A predictive model for the risk of infertility in men using machine learning algorithms. J Urol Surg 2022; 9: 265-71.
24.
Kayra MV, Şahin A, Toksöz S, et al. Machine learning-based classification of varicocele grading: a promising approach for diagnosis and treatment optimization. Andrology 2025; 13: 1451-61.
25.
Bao Y, Medland NA, Fairley CK, et al. Predicting the diagnosis of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men using machine learning approaches. J Infect 2021; 82: 48-59.
26.
Farashi S, Momtaz HE. Prediction of urinary tract infection using machine learning methods: a study for finding the most-informative variables. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2025; 25: 13.
27.
Soe NN, Towns JM, Latt PM, et al. Accuracy of symptom checker for the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections using machine learning and Bayesian network algorithms. BMC Infect Dis 2024; 24: 1408.
28.
Schinkel M, Boerman AW, Bennis FC, et al. Diagnostic stewardship for blood cultures in the emergency department: a multicenter validation and prospective evaluation of a machine learning prediction tool. EBioMedicine 2022; 82: 104176.