ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
From conventional scores to explainable AI: a six-method comparative framework for failure prediction in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Article in World journal of urology, 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.
- Comment on: "From conventional scores to explainable AI: a six-method comparative framework for failure prediction in percutaneous nephrolithotomy".World journal of 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePercutaneous nephrolithotomy is the gold standard for treating large kidney stones. However, traditional scoring systems and logistic regression-based models have limited predictive power due to their reliance on linear assumptions. This study developed a machine learning and explainable artificial intelligence-based model incorporating multiple methodological approaches to predict surgical failure after percutaneous nephrolithotomy and compared it with classical methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 287 patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy between January 2018 and January 2022. Demographic, laboratory, and imaging parameters (stone-to-skin distance, stone dimensions, stone count, etc.) were evaluated. Six different feature selection methods were employed (LASSO, RFE, SHAP, permutation importance, model-based importance, effect size). Multiple machine learning algorithms were tested with cross-validation; model interpretability was achieved through SHAP and LIME analyses. Performance was compared with logistic regression and existing scoring systems (GSS, CROES).
resultsIn logistic regression analysis, presence of multiple stones was identified as an independent risk factor (OR: 1.66), while stone-to-skin distance was a protective factor (OR: 0.68). Among machine learning models, the Voting Classifier demonstrated the highest performance (AUC = 0.839, accuracy = 84.5%, F1 = 0.842), significantly outperforming both logistic regression (AUC = 0.812) and classical scoring systems such as GSS and CROES (AUC = 0.615-0.653). SHAP analysis revealed stone-to-skin distance and stone length in the anterior-posterior dimension as the most influential variables in model predictions.
conclusionThe explainable artificial intelligence-based multi-methodological approach provided higher accuracy and better interpretability in predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy failure compared to classical methods. This clinically applicable and explainable decision support model offers innovative contributions to urological practice for pre-percutaneous nephrolithotomy risk stratification. Multicenter, prospective external validation studies are needed for generalizability of the findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41177877What 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.