ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Machine learning-based prediction of stone-free status following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
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. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop a machine learning model for predicting stone-free (SF) outcomes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and to identify key clinical and stone-related predictors using interpretable machine learning techniques.
methodsA total of 369 patients who underwent SWL between 2013 and 2022 at a single institution were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and stone-related features were used to train a Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) classification model. The dataset was split into training (70%) and testing (30%) sets, and model performance was evaluated using accuracy, area under curve (AUC), recall, precision, and F1-score. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values were used to assess feature importance. SMOTETomek was performed to address class imbalance.
resultsThe LightGBM model achieved an overall accuracy of 82.88% and an AUC of 0.651 in the testing set. However, recall and precision for the SF group were low (18.2% and 16.7%, respectively), reflecting model bias due to class imbalance. SHAP analysis identified mean stone size, ureter stone, and stone burden as the top predictors of SWL success. After class balancing, hypertension and age were ranked among the most influential features in the model. Logistic regression confirmed the significance of mean stone size and stone location, while SHAP revealed additional nonlinear feature contributions not captured by traditional methods.
conclusionThe LightGBM model combined with SHAP interpretation effectively identified important predictors of SWL outcomes. Despite good overall performance, limited sensitivity for SF cases highlights the impact of class imbalance. Addressing this through balancing techniques and incorporating additional clinical variables may improve prediction and support personalized treatment planning in SWL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41405707What 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.