ArticleBJU international2022
Evaluation and understanding of automated urinary stone recognition methods.
Article in BJU international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can AI and predictive models accurately predict stone-free status? a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- A two-stage deep learning framework for kidney disease detection using modified specular-free imaging and EfficientNetB2.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Visualized hysteroscopic artificial intelligence fertility assessment system for endometrial injury: an image-deep-learning study.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Prolonged Diuretic, Natriuretic, and Potassium- and Calcium-Sparing Effect of Hesperidin in Hypertensive Rats.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Acoustic emission of kidney stones: a medical adaptation of statistical breakdown mechanisms.Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Advancements in stone classification: unveiling the beauty of urolithiasis.World journal of urology · 2024Review
- Urinary calculi composition and its correlation with sex, age, calculi site, urine pH and underlying diseases: a retrospective study.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Transforming urinary stone disease management by artificial intelligence-based methods: A comprehensive review.Asian journal of urology · 2023Review
- Theranostic roles of machine learning in clinical management of kidney stone disease.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the potential of automated machine-learning methods for recognizing urinary stones in endoscopy. MATERIALS AND
methodsSurface and section images of 123 urinary calculi (109 ex vivo and 14 in vivo stones) were acquired using ureteroscopes. The stones were more than 85% 'pure'. Six classes of urolithiasis were represented: Groups I (calcium oxalate monohydrate, whewellite), II (calcium oxalate dihydrate, weddellite), III (uric acid), IV (brushite and struvite stones), and V (cystine). The automated stone recognition methods that were developed for this study followed two types of approach: shallow classification methods and deep-learning-based methods. Their sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were evaluated by simultaneously using stone surface and section images to classify them into one of the main morphological groups (subgroups were not considered in this study).
resultsUsing shallow methods (based on texture and colour criteria), relatively high sensitivity, specificity and PPV for the six classes were attained: 91%, 90% and 89%, respectively, for whewellite; 99%, 98% and 99% for weddellite; 88%, 89% and 88% for uric acid; 91%, 89% and 90% for struvite; 99%, 99% and 99% for cystine; and 94%, 98% and 99% for brushite. Using deep-learning methods, the sensitivity, specificity and PPV for each of the classes were as follows: 99%, 98% and 97% for whewellite; 98%, 98% and 98% for weddellite; 97%, 98% and 98% for uric acid; 97%, 97% and 96% for struvite; 99%, 99% and 99% for cystine; and 94%, 97% and 98% for brushite.
conclusionEndoscopic stone recognition is challenging, and few urologists have sufficient expertise to achieve a diagnosis performance comparable to morpho-constitutional analysis. This work is a proof of concept that artificial intelligence could be a solution, with promising results achieved for pure stones. Further studies on a larger panel of stones (pure and mixed) are needed to further develop these methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.