ArticleUrology2023
AI-generated R.E.N.A.L.+ Score Surpasses Human-generated Score in Predicting Renal Oncologic Outcomes.
Article in Urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The seventh kidney cancer research summit: progress in accelerating cures.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Impact of the "L" score from the RENAL nephrometry score on RAPN surgical outcomes in medial versus lateral renal tumors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- MRI of kidney size matters.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Review
- The evolving management of small renal masses.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether we can surpass the traditional R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score (H-score) prediction ability of pathologic outcomes by creating artificial intelligence (AI)-generated R.E.N.A.L.+ score (AI+ score) with continuous rather than ordinal components. We also assessed the AI+ score components' relative importance with respect to outcome odds.
methodsThis is a retrospective study of 300 consecutive patients with preoperative computed tomography scans showing suspected renal cancer at a single institution from 2010 to 2018. H-score was tabulated by three trained medical personnel. Deep neural network approach automatically generated kidney segmentation masks of parenchyma and tumor. Geometric algorithms were used to automatically estimate score components as ordinal and continuous variables. Multivariate logistic regression of continuous R.E.N.A.L. components was used to generate AI+ score. Predictive utility was compared between AI+, AI, and H-scores for variables of interest, and AI+ score components' relative importance was assessed.
resultsMedian age was 60years (interquartile range 51-68), and 40% were female. Median tumor size was 4.2 cm (2.6-6.12), and 92% were malignant, including 27%, 37%, and 23% with high-stage, high-grade, and necrosis, respectively. AI+ score demonstrated superior predictive ability over AI and H-scores for predicting malignancy (area under the curve [AUC] 0.69 vs 0.67 vs 0.64, respectively), high stage (AUC 0.82 vs 0.65 vs 0.71, respectively), high grade (AUC 0.78 vs 0.65 vs 0.65, respectively), pathologic tumor necrosis (AUC 0.81 vs 0.72 vs 0.74, respectively), and partial nephrectomy approach (AUC 0.88 vs 0.74 vs 0.79, respectively). Of AI+ score components, the maximal tumor diameter ("R") was the most important outcomes predictor.
conclusionAI+ score was superior to AI-score and H-score in predicting oncologic outcomes. Time-efficient AI+ score can be used at the point of care, surpassing validated clinical scoring systems.
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.