ArticleBJU international2026
A computer vision model for automated kidney stone segmentation and evaluation of its performance vs surgeons.
Article in BJU international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A validated custom pipeline for three-dimensional kidney stone renderings tocreate an open access repository.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Detection of fragmentation while dusting during retrograde intrarenal laser lithotripsy: a novel computer vision and perception pipeline.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a computer vision model that segments stones to improve visualisation during ureteroscopy (URS) and to compare model performance to that of experts. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe collected 136 videos of URS for intrarenal kidney stone treatment. Frames were extracted at 3 frames per second (FPS) and manually annotated. The video dataset was split into training (75%), validation (5%) and testing (20%) subsets. Model performance was evaluated for stone localisation, laser ablation, and final evaluation of remaining fragments based on area under the receiver-operating curve, binary cross-entropy loss and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Model performance was compared to the manual annotations of five board-certified urologists through pairwise comparison of frame-by-frame segmentation accuracy.
resultsThe final dataset consisted of 21 718 frames from 38 fibreoptic and 98 digital videos. Overall, the model showed excellent performance: DSC 0.97 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.91, 0.99) and could segment at 30 FPS. Performance was similar for both fibreoptic (0.97 [IQR 0.91, 0.99]) and digital scopes (0.97 [IQR 0.92, 0.99]). Additionally, the model demonstrated good performance during stone localisation (0.98 [IQR 0.93, 0.99]) and stone laser ablation (0.96 [IQR 0.89, 0.97]), with slightly worse performance during evaluation of residual fragments (0.91 [IQR 0.50, 0.97]). Model performance was comparable to the five expert surgeons overall. In a head-to-head comparison, the model significantly outperformed three of the five experts and performed similarly to the other two.
conclusionThe computer vision model demonstrates good performance for task-specific stone segmentation evaluation during URS. The segmentation performance of the model was similar to the segmentation performance of expert surgeons, demonstrating the feasibility of its real-time intra-operative utilisation.
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.