ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Comparison of actual and automated CT measurements of urinary stone size: a phantom study.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urinary stone size is key in determining treatment. Although computed tomography (CT) scans are widely used for diagnosing urinary stones, measurements of stone size obtained from CT images may be inaccurate compared to actual size. Twenty-four urinary stone phantoms were 3D printed at three densities (100, 1000, and 3000 Hounsfield units [HU]) and eight sizes. CT images of the phantoms were taken. Nineteen radiologists and 33 emergency physicians from two institutions measured stone sizes on CT images using mediastinum and bone settings. An automated algorithm segmented regions of interest and estimated stone size using pixel HUs. Mean absolute error (MAE) was assessed for the accuracy of each measurement method against known phantom sizes. For the mediastinum setting, MAEs for 100, 1000, and 3000 HU stone phantoms were 1.05 mm ± 0.06, 1.01 mm ± 0.06, and 2.38 mm ± 0.17, respectively. For the bone setting, MAEs were 0.98 mm ± 0.07, 0.55 mm ± 0.10, and 1.91 mm ± 0.06, respectively. For automated measurements, MAEs were 1.16 mm, 0.21 mm, and 2.10 mm, respectively. Participant-to-participant variability was observed across all measurement settings, regardless of the stone density or window used. For stone size measurements on CT images, the bone setting provided more accurate results than the mediastinum setting. Automated measurement methods, which estimate stone size by outlining its edges, were more accurate than manual measurements for 1000 HU stones, the most common stone density. However, for stones with densities above or below 1000 HU, the accuracy of the automated method may decrease.
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.