ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024
Prediction of spontaneous distal ureteral stone passage using artificial intelligence.
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 1 paper.
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.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIdentifying factors predicting the spontaneous passage of distal ureteral stones and evaluating the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in prediction. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe files of patients presenting with distal ureteral stones were retrospectively evaluated. Those who experienced spontaneous passage were assigned to Group P, while those who did not were assigned to Group N. Demographic and clinical data of both groups were compared. Then, logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors predicting spontaneous stone passage. Based on these factors, a logistic regression model was prepared, and artificial intelligence algorithms trained on the dataset were compared with this model to evaluate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in predicting spontaneous stone passage.
resultsWhen comparing stone characteristics and NCCT findings, it was found that the stone size was significantly smaller in Group P (4.9 ± 1.7 mm vs. 6.8 ± 1.4 mm), while the ureteral diameter was significantly higher in Group P (3.3 ± 0.9 mm vs. 3.1 ± 1.1 mm) (p < 0.05). Parameters such as stone HU, stone radiopacity, renal pelvis AP diameter, and perirenal stranding were similar between the groups. In multivariate analysis, stone size and alpha-blocker usage were significant factors in predicting spontaneous stone passage. The ROC analysis for the logistic regression model constructed from the significant variables revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.835, with sensitivity of 80.1% and specificity of 68.4%. AI algorithms predicted the spontaneous stone passage up to 92% sensitivity and up to 86% specifity.
conclusionsAI algorithms are high-powered alternatives that can be used in the prediction of spontaneous distal ureteral stone passage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38340263What 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.