ArticleBMC research notes2024
Predicting symptomatic kidney stones using machine learning algorithms: insights from the Fasa adults cohort study (FACS).
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluation of the Risk of Urinary System Stone Recurrence Using Anthropometric Measurements and Lifestyle Behaviors in a Developed Artificial Intelligence Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Use of Artificial Intelligence Methods for Improved Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections and Urinary Stone Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo enhance the identification of individuals at risk of developing clinically significant kidney stones.
methodsIn this study, data from the Fasa Adults Cohort Study were analyzed to explore factors linked to symptomatic and clinically significant kidney stone disease. After cleaning, 10,128 participants with 103 variables were studied. One outcome variable (presence of symptomatic kidney stones) and 102 predictor variables from surveys and tests were assessed. Five Machine learning (ML) algorithms (SVM, RF, KNN, GBM, XGB) were applied to examine kidney stone factors, with performance comparisons made. Data balancing was done using SMOTE, and metrics like accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and AUC were evaluated for each algorithm.
resultsThe XGB model outperformed others with AUC of 0.60, while RF, GBM, SVC, and KNN had AUC values of 0.58, 0.57, 0.54, and 0.52. RF, GBM, and XGB showed good accuracy at 0.81, 0.81, and 0.77. Top predictors for kidney stones were serum creatinine, salt intake, hospitalization history, sleep duration, and BUN levels.
conclusionsML models show promise in evaluating an individual's risk of developing painful kidney stones and recommending early lifestyle changes to reduce this risk. Further research can enhance predictive accuracy and tailor interventions for better prevention/management.
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.