ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2023
Machine Learning Models for Predicting the Type and Outcome of Ureteral Stones Treatments.
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current state of AI for shockwave lithotripsy: a systematic review from YAU and EAU endourology.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Kidney and ureter stones are the third pathologies in urological diseases. Less invasive treatments such as transureteral lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy are used to treat ureteral stones. Data mining has provided the possibility of improving decision-making in choosing the optimal treatment. In this paper predictive models for the detection of ureter stone treatment (first model) and its outcome (second model) is developed based on the patient's demographic, clinical, and laboratory factors. Methods and Material: In this cross-sectional study a questionnaire was used to identify the most effective features in the predictive models, and Information on 440 patients was collected. The models were constructed using machine learning techniques (Multilayer perceptron, Classification, and regression tree, k-nearest neighbors, Support vector machine, Naïve Bayes classifier, Random Forest, and AdaBoost) in the Bigpro1 analytical system. Results: Among the Holdout and K-fold cross-validation methods used, the Holdout method showed better performance. From the data-based balancing methods used in the second model, the Synthetic Minority oversampling technique showed better performance. Also, the AdaBoost algorithm had the best performance. In this algorithm, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F- measure, and Area under the carve in the first model were 89%, 87%, 91%, 90%, 89%, and 94% respectively, and in the second model were 81%, 81%, 82%, 84%, 82%, and 85% respectively. Conclusions: The results were promising and showed that the data mining techniques could be a powerful assistant for urologists to predict a surgical outcome and also to choose an appropriate surgical treatment for removing ureter stones.
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.