Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37720492›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nephrology and renovascular disease2023

Predicting the Stone-Free Status of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with the Machine Learning System.

Rami AlAzab, Owais Ghammaz, Nabil Ardah, Ayah Al-Bzour, Layan Zeidat, Zahraa Mawali, Yaman B Ahmed, Tha'er Abdulkareem Alguzo, Azhar Mohanad Al-Alwani, Mahmoud Samara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. New Technology in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Application of Navigation System, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Suction Access Sheath.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

10 authors.

Rami AlAzabDepartment of General Surgery and Urology, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan.
Owais GhammazFaculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Nabil ArdahFaculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Ayah Al-BzourFaculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0001-8216-0400
Layan ZeidatFaculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Zahraa MawaliFaculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Yaman B AhmedFaculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Tha'er Abdulkareem AlguzoDepartment of General Surgery and Urology, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan.
Azhar Mohanad Al-AlwaniDepartment of General Surgery and Urology, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan.
Mahmoud SamaraDepartment of General Surgery and Urology, King Abdullah University Hospital, Irbid, Jordan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The study aimed to create a machine learning model (MLM) to predict the stone-free status (SFS) of patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and compare its performance to the S.T.O.N.E. and Guy's stone scores. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective study that included 320 PCNL patients. Pre-operative and post-operative variables were extracted and entered into three MLMs: RFC, SVM, and XGBoost. The methods used to assess the performance of each were mean bootstrap estimate, 10-fold cross-validation, classification report, and AUC. Each model was externally validated and evaluated by mean bootstrap estimate with CI, classification report, and AUC. Results: Out of the 320 patients who underwent PCNL, the SFS was found to be 69.4%. The RFC mean bootstrap estimate was 0.75 and 95% CI: [0.65-0.85], 10-fold cross-validation of 0.744, an accuracy of 0.74, and AUC of 0.761. The XGBoost results were 0.74 [0.63-0.85], 0.759, 0.72, and 0.769, respectively. The SVM results were 0.70 [0.60-0.79], 0.725, 0.74, and 0.751, respectively. The AUC of Guy's stone score and the S.T.O.N.E. score were 0.666 and 0.71, respectively. The RFC external validation set had a mean bootstrap estimate of 0.87 and 95% CI: [0.81-0.92], an accuracy of 0.70, and an AUC of 0.795, While the XGBoost results were 0.84 [0.78-0.91], 0.74, and 0.84, respectively. The SVM results were 0.86 [0.80-0.91], 0.79, and 0.858, respectively. Conclusion: MLMs can be used with high accuracy in predicting SFS for patients undergoing PCNL. MLMs we utilized predicted the SFS with AUCs superior to those of GSS and S.T.O.N.E scores.

Indexed as

Guy’s stone scoremachine learningpercutaneous nephrolithotomyrenal stonesS.T.O.N.E score

Identifiers

PMID37720492
PMCPMC10503523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.