ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Preoperative machine learning algorithm for predicting urosepsis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy using EMR data.
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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Urosepsis is one of the most severe complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). This study aimed to develop and validate a preoperative machine learning (ML) model for predicting post-PNL urosepsis using electronic medical record (EMR) data. In this retrospective study, we included 360 patients with urosepsis and 2,636 without urosepsis. Multimodal clinical parameters were collected, including demographic data, admission vital signs, imaging reports, and laboratory results. The cohort was randomly split into a training set (80%) and a validation set (20%). Eight ML algorithms were used to build prediction models, with performance evaluated via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. In the training set, the LightGBM, RF, and XGBoost models showed the highest accuracy, each achieving an Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) of 1.00. In contrast, the LR model performed best in the validation set (AUC = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64–0.91). The key predictors for the LR model included heart rate (HR), serum creatinine (Scr), venous thromboembolism (VTE), urine leukocytes (U-LEU), and body mass index (BMI), which were part of 19 total predictive parameters. In conclusion, we developed an ML model using 19 preoperative EMR-derived parameters to predict post-PNL urosepsis risk. This model may help clinicians identify high-risk patients preoperatively, enabling timely interventions to reduce PNL-associated mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41428222What 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.