ArticleInternational journal of nephrology and renovascular disease2023
Predicting the Stone-Free Status of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with the Machine Learning System.
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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Can AI and predictive models accurately predict stone-free status? a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Predicting the stone-free status post percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis of machine learning models.Urolithiasis · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence-based prediction of stone-free status in patients undergoing mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy without retrograde insertion of a ureteral catheter.World journal of urology · 2026Observational
- Correlation between S.T.O.N.E score and channel size selection in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Forecasting Stone-Free Status Following Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Utilizing Explainable Machine Learning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning model integrating radiomics and clinical features for predicting postoperative bleeding after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Review
- 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 · 2025Review
- A novel predictive method for URS and laser lithotripsy using machine learning and explainable AI: results from the FLEXOR international database.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Can Machine Learning Correctly Predict Outcomes of Flexible Ureteroscopy with Laser Lithotripsy for Kidney Stone Disease? Results from a Large Endourology University Centre.European urology open science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.