ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024
An automatic diagnostic system for the urodynamic study applying in lower urinary tract dysfunction.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for urodynamic studies: systematic review of methods, performance, and clinical applications.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Implantable bladder sensors for real-time urodynamics: A systematic review of preclinical and clinical evidence in neuro-urology.Current urology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
objectiveTo establish an automatic diagnostic system based on machine learning for preliminarily analysis of urodynamic study applying in lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD).
methodsThe eight most common conditions of LUTDs were included in the present study. A total of 527 eligible patients with complete data, from the year of 2015 to 2020, were enrolled in this study. In total, two global parameters (patients' age and sex) and 13 urodynamic parameters were considered to be the input for machine learning algorithms. Three machine learning approaches were applied and evaluated in this study, including Decision Tree (DT), Logistic Regression (LR), and Support Vector Machine (SVM).
resultsBy applying machine learning algorithms into the 8 common LUTDs, the DT models achieved the AUC of 0.63-0.98, the LR models achieved the AUC of 0.73-0.99, and the SVM models achieved the AUC of 0.64-1.00. For mutually exclusive diagnoses of underactive detrusor and acontractile detrusor, we developed a classification model that classifies the patients into either of these two diseases or double-negative class. For this classification method, the DT models achieved the AUC of 0.82-0.85 and the SVM models achieved the AUC of 0.86-0.90. Among all these models, the LR and the SVM models showed better performance. The best model of these diagnostic tasks achieved an average AUC of 0.90 (0.90 ± 0.08).
conclusionsAn automatic diagnostic system was developed using three machine learning models in urodynamic studies. This automated machine learning process could lead to promising assistance and enhancements of diagnosis and provide more useful reference for LUTD treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37755608What 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.