ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Preoperative classification of urinary stones based on community detection.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2025. 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.
- The high-risk factors of urinary infectious stones: a retrospective study.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
In the treatment of urinary stones, surgical intervention is crucial. Urinary stones composition and type directly affect surgical planning. However, research on preoperative stone composition analysis is limited. This paper aimed to predict urinary stones types preoperatively using clinical data. Data from 1020 patients, including stone composition, clinical biochemical indicators, and demographic information, were collected. A stone composition graph network was constructed using cosine similarity, with stone composition as nodes and biochemical/demographic data as node features. The Louvain community detection algorithm was utilized to divide the network into distinct communities for the classification of stone types, with the effectiveness of the partitioning evaluated by the Modularity score. Stone types were classified, and their distribution across genders and age groups was described. Clinical feature averages were calculated for each community, and patients were assigned to the most similar community. Six machine learning algorithms (RandomForest, GradientBoosting, SVM, KNN, Logistic Regression, XGBoost) were trained to predict stone types. Model performance was evaluated, and the importance of clinical features for prediction was ranked. Six stone types were identified (Modularity = 0.828), namely common COM (Class I), COM with minor AU (Class II), COM with high UA (Class III), COM containing MAP (Class IV), high CAP-MAP (Class V), and high COM-CAP containing DCPD (Class VI). Among males, Class III and Class I were most prevalent; among females, Class V and Class III were most prevalent (χ
Indexed as
Identifiers
40050503What 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.