ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022
A retrospective cohort study on the use of machine learning to predict stone-free status following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: An experience from Saudi Arabia.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in urolithiasis: a systematic review of utilization and effectiveness.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Application of machine learning in measurement of ageing and geriatric diseases: a systematic review.BMC geriatrics · 2023Pooled it
- Forecasting Stone-Free Status Following Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Utilizing Explainable Machine Learning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A machine learning approach using stone volume to predict stone-free status at ureteroscopy.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Management of nephrolithiasis in the Middle East over a recent decade: A systematic review.Urology annalsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Machine learning techniques have been used extensively in the field of clinical medicine, especially when used for the construction of prediction models. The aim of the study was to use machine learning to predict the stone-free status after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Materials and methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 137 patients. Data from adult patients who underwent PCNL at our institute were used for the purpose of this study. Three supervised machine learning algorithms were employed: Logistic Regression, XGBoost Regressor, and Random Forests. A set of variables comprising independent attributes including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus, gout, renal and stone factors (previous surgery, stone location, size, and staghorn status), and pre-operative surgical factors (infections, stent, hemoglobin, creatinine, and bacteriuria) were entered. Results: 137 patients were identified. The majority were males (65.4%; n = 89), aged 50 years and above (41.9%; n = 57). The stone-free status (SFS) rate was 86% (n = 118). An inverse relation was detected between SFS, and CKD and HTN. The accuracies were 71.4%, 74.5% and 75% using Logistic Regression, XGBoost, and Random Forest algorithms, respectively. Stone size, pre-operative hemoglobin, pre-operative creatinine, and stone type were the most important factors in predicting the SFS following PCNL. Conclusion: The Random Forest model showed the highest efficacy in predicting SFS. We developed an effective machine learning model to assist physicians and other healthcare professionals in selecting patients with renal stones who are most likely to have successful PCNL treatment based on their demographics and stone characteristics. Larger multicenter studies are needed to develop more powerful algorithms, such as deep learning and other AI subsets.
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.