ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2022
Prediction of the composition of urinary stones using deep learning.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in urolithiasis: a systematic review of utilization and effectiveness.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Study on automatic recognition of stone composition in intraoperative endoscopic images-a single center study.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Construction of a LASSO regression-based predictive model for recurrence of urinary tract stones.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Recognizing uric acid type of urinary stones by deep learning.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Inconsistency in stone composition among bilateral urolithiasis patients: a multicenter retrospective study.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Agreement Between Visual Assessment of Urinary Stones Morphology During Endo-Urological Procedure and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy-based Composition Analysis: An Observational Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2025Observational
- Characteristics of urinary stone composition among patients with urolithiasis: a retrospective study in China.BMJ open · 2024Observational
- CT-based deep learning model for predicting the success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in treating ureteral stones larger than 1 cm.Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Transforming urinary stone disease management by artificial intelligence-based methods: A comprehensive review.Asian journal of urology · 2023Review
- A New Parameter for Calcium Oxalate Stones: Impact of Linear Calculus Density on Non-Contrast Computed Tomography.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to predict the composition of urolithiasis using deep learning from urinary stone images. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe classified 1,332 stones into 31 classes according to the stone composition. The top 4 classes with a frequency of 110 or more (class 1: calcium oxalate monohydrate [COM] 100%, class 2: COM 80%+struvite 20%, class 3: COM 60%+calcium oxalate dihydrate [COD] 40%, class 4: uric acid 100%) were selected. With the 965 stone images of the top 4 classes, we used the seven convolutional neural networks (CNN) to classify urinary stones and compared their classification performances.
resultsAmong the seven models, Xception_Ir0.001 showed the highest accuracy, precision, and recall and was selected as the CNN model to predict the stone composition. The sensitivity and specificity for the 4 classes by Xception_Ir0.001 were as follows: class 1 (94.24%, 91.73%), class 2 (85.42%, 96.14%), class 3 (86.86%, 99.59%), and class 4 (94.96%, 98.82%). The sensitivity and specificity of the individual components of the stones were as follows. COM (98.82%, 94.96%), COD (86.86%, 99.64%), struvite (85.42%, 95.59%), and uric acid (94.96%, 98.82%). The area under the curves for class 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0.98, 0.97, 1.00, and 1.00, respectively.
conclusionsThis study showed the feasibility of deep learning for the diagnostic ability to assess urinary stone composition from images. It can be an alternative tool for conventional stone analysis and provide decision support to urologists, improving the effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment.
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.