Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35484960›Full record

ArticleBJU international2022

Evaluation and understanding of automated urinary stone recognition methods.

Jonathan El Beze, Charles Mazeaud, Christian Daul, Gilberto Ochoa-Ruiz, Michel Daudon, Pascal Eschwège, Jacques Hubert

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Theranostic roles of machine learning in clinical management of kidney stone disease.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonathan El BezeDepartment of Urology, CHU Nancy - Brabois, Nancy, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4965-7743
Charles MazeaudDepartment of Urology, CHU Nancy - Brabois, Nancy, France.
Christian DaulCRAN UMR 7039, Université de Lorraine and CNRS, Nancy, France.
Gilberto Ochoa-RuizTecnologico de Monterrey, Escuela de ingeniería y Ciencias, Mexico.
Michel DaudonUnit of Functional Explorations, INSERM UMRS 1155, Hospital Tenon, APHP, Paris, France.
Pascal EschwègeDepartment of Urology, CHU Nancy - Brabois, Nancy, France.
Jacques HubertDepartment of Urology, CHU Nancy - Brabois, Nancy, France.
Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Nancy · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInserm · FRTecnológico de Monterrey · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Uric AcidUrinary CalculiArtificial IntelligenceCalcium OxalateCalcium PhosphatesCystineHumansStruviteCalcium Oxalatecalcium phosphate, dibasic, dihydrateCalcium PhosphatesCystineStruviteUric Acidweddellitewhewelliteautomated kidney stone recognitiondeep learningmorphoconstitutional analysisureteroscopyurolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID35484960
PMCPMC9790467
OpenAlexW4225116443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.