Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33937795›Full record

ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2019

Urinary Stone Detection on CT Images Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks: Evaluation of Model Performance and Generalization.

Anushri Parakh, Hyunkwang Lee, Jeong Hyun Lee, Brian H Eisner, Dushyant V Sahani, Synho Do

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Development and validation of a deep learning radiomics model for predicting adjacent segment degeneration following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Anushri ParakhDepartments of Radiology (A.P., H.L., D.V.S., S.D.) and Urology (B.H.E.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114; John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass (H.L.): and Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.H.L.).ORCID 0000-0002-4778-2383
Hyunkwang LeeDepartments of Radiology (A.P., H.L., D.V.S., S.D.) and Urology (B.H.E.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114; John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass (H.L.): and Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.H.L.).ORCID 0000-0002-4806-6709
Jeong Hyun LeeDepartments of Radiology (A.P., H.L., D.V.S., S.D.) and Urology (B.H.E.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114; John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass (H.L.): and Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.H.L.).ORCID 0000-0002-7125-8899
Brian H EisnerDepartments of Radiology (A.P., H.L., D.V.S., S.D.) and Urology (B.H.E.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114; John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass (H.L.): and Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.H.L.).
Dushyant V SahaniDepartments of Radiology (A.P., H.L., D.V.S., S.D.) and Urology (B.H.E.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114; John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass (H.L.): and Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.H.L.).ORCID 0000-0002-8522-1018
Synho DoDepartments of Radiology (A.P., H.L., D.V.S., S.D.) and Urology (B.H.E.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114; John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass (H.L.): and Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.H.L.).ORCID 0000-0001-6211-7050

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the diagnostic accuracy of cascading convolutional neural network (CNN) for urinary stone detection on unenhanced CT images and to evaluate the performance of pretrained models enriched with labeled CT images across different scanners. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved, retrospective clinical study used unenhanced abdominopelvic CT scans from 535 adults suspected of having urolithiasis. The scans were obtained on two scanners (scanner 1 [hereafter S1] and scanner 2 [hereafter S2]). A radiologist reviewed clinical reports and labeled cases for determination of reference standard. Stones were present on 279 (S1, 131; S2, 148) and absent on 256 (S1, 158; S2, 98) scans. One hundred scans (50 from each scanner) were randomly reserved as the test dataset, and the rest were used for developing a cascade of two CNNs: The first CNN identified the extent of the urinary tract, and the second CNN detected presence of stone. Nine variations of models were developed through the combination of different training data sources (S1, S2, or both [hereafter SB]) with (ImageNet, GrayNet) and without (Random) pretrained CNNs. First, models were compared for generalizability at the section level. Second, models were assessed by using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and accuracy at the patient level with test dataset from both scanners (

resultsThe GrayNet-pretrained model showed higher classifier exactness than did ImageNet-pretrained or Random-initialized models when tested by using data from the same or different scanners at section level. At the patient level, the AUC for stone detection was 0.92-0.95, depending on the model. Accuracy of GrayNet-SB (95%) was higher than that of ImageNet-SB (91%) and Random-SB (88%). For stones larger than 4 mm, all models showed similar performance (false-negative results: two of 34). For stones smaller than 4 mm, the number of false-negative results for GrayNet-SB, ImageNet-SB, and Random-SB were one of 16, three of 16, and five of 16, respectively. GrayNet-SB identified stones in all 22 test cases that had obstructive uropathy.

conclusionA cascading model of CNNs can detect urinary tract stones on unenhanced CT scans with a high accuracy (AUC, 0.954). Performance and generalization of CNNs across scanners can be enhanced by using transfer learning with datasets enriched with labeled medical images.© RSNA, 2019

Identifiers

PMID33937795
PMCPMC8017404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.