ArticleCurrent urology2024
Two novel deep-learning models to predict spontaneous ureteral calculi passage: Model development and validation.
Article in Current urology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate two deep-learning (DL) models for predicting spontaneous ureteral stone passage (SSP). Materials and methods: A total of 1217 patients with thin-layer computed tomography-confirmed ureteral stones in our hospital from January 2019 to December 2022 were retrospectively examined. These patients were grouped into 3 data sets: the training set (n = 1000), the validation set ( Results: Of the 1217 patients, SSP was reported in 446 (36.6%). The total accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 76.9%, 56.1%, and 90.8% for the stone diameter approach; 87.1%, 84.2%, and 92.7% for the 2D ResNet29 model; and 90.6%, 88.2%, and 95.1% for the 3D ResNet29 model, respectively. Both the 2D and 3D ResNet29 models showed significantly higher accuracy than the stone diameter approach. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that both DL models had a significantly higher area under the curve than the stone diameter-based classification. Conclusions: The DL models, particularly the 3D model, are novel and effective methods for predicting SSP rates. Using such models may help determine whether a patient should receive surgical intervention or expect a long interval before stone passage.
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.