Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35156216›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2022

A deep learning system for automated kidney stone detection and volumetric segmentation on noncontrast CT scans.

Daniel C Elton, Evrim B Turkbey, Perry J Pickhardt, Ronald M Summers

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Kidney medicine meets computer vision: a bibliometric analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2024
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel C EltonRadiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Evrim B TurkbeyRadiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Perry J PickhardtSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Ronald M SummersRadiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
National Institutes of Health Clinical Center · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Computer Aided Detection for CT ColonographyZ01CL040003 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI SUMMERS, RONALD M. · 2003 to 2008
$368k
Computer Aided Detection for Radiologic ImagesZ01CL040004 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI SUMMERS, RONALD M. · 2003 to 2008
$41k
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 CL040003Intramural NIH HHS Z01 CL040004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEarly detection and size quantification of renal calculi are important for optimizing treatment and preventing severe kidney stone disease. Prior work has shown that volumetric measurements of kidney stones are more informative and reproducible than linear measurements. Deep learning-based systems that use abdominal noncontrast computed tomography (CT) scans may assist in detection and reduce workload by removing the need for manual stone volume measurement. Prior to this work, no such system had been developed for use on noisy low-dose CT or tested on a large-scale external dataset.

methodsWe used a dataset of 91 CT colonography (CTC) scans with manually marked kidney stones combined with 89 CTC scans without kidney stones. To compare with a prior work half the data was used for training and half for testing. A set of CTC scans from 6185 patients from a separate institution with patient-level labels were used as an external validation set. A 3D U-Net model was employed to segment the kidneys, followed by gradient-based anisotropic denoising, thresholding, and region growing. A 13 layer convolutional neural network classifier was then applied to distinguish kidney stones from false positive regions.

resultsThe system achieved a sensitivity of 0.86 at 0.5 false positives per scan on a challenging test set of low-dose CT with many small stones, an improvement over an earlier work that obtained a sensitivity of 0.52. The stone volume measurements correlated well with manual measurements (

conclusionsOur deep-learning-based system showed improvements over a previously developed system that did not use deep learning, with even higher performance on an external validation set.

Indexed as

Deep LearningKidney CalculiAbdomenHumansNeural Networks, ComputerTomography, X-Ray Computeddeep learningkidney stonesmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID35156216
PMCPMC10407943
OpenAlexW4213148959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.