ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2025
CT-based AI score associates with perioperative outcomes in nephron-sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 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
Abstract
backgroundTo develop and validate a CT-based artificial intelligence (AI) score model integrating the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry and contact surface area (CSA) for efficient, accurate prediction of perioperative outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients undergoing nephron-sparing surgery (NSS), addressing the subjectivity and inefficiency of manual score.
methodsRetrospectively collected data from two NSS cohorts (n1 = 500, n2 = 50): 90% of cases in Cohort n1 (450 cases) were randomly assigned to the training set (315 cases), validation set (45 cases), and test set (90 cases) at a ratio of 7:1:2, which were used to develop and validate the automated kidney/tumor segmentation models, as well as to derive the AI-calculated R.E.N.A.L. score (with the "A" parameter excluded) and AI-calculated CSA score; the remaining 10% of cases in Cohort n1 (50 cases) were combined with all 50 cases in Cohort n2 to form a mixed validation set (100 cases), which was used for risk stratification prediction of NSS perioperative outcomes via AI scores. Manual image annotation/scoring was conducted by experienced radiologists and urologists. Interrater consistency was evaluated via weighted kappa coefficients; risk stratification was performed via Kruskal-Wallis tests and Mann-Whitney U tests.
resultsA total of 550 patients were included in this study (median age, 56 [IQR: 46-66] years; 341 males). The segmentation model exhibited excellent performance: Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was 0.95 for kidneys and 0.80 for tumors; normalized surface distance (NSD) was 0.923 ± 0.082 and 0.892 ± 0.096, respectively; 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD95) was 9.78 ± 0.63 mm and 12.65 ± 0.84 mm, respectively. The R, E, N, L, R.E.N.A.L., and CSA score models had good consistency compared with the manual score, and the kappa coefficients were 0.82, 0.49, 0.63, 0.60, 0.65, and 0.69, respectively (all P < 0.01). Risk stratification by AI score significantly predicted warm ischemia time, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, serum creatinine changes, pathological T stage, and nuclear grade (all P < 0.05).
conclusionsThis study successfully developed a CT-based automated kidney/tumor segmentation model, and on this basis constructed the AI-R.E.N.A.L. and AI-CSA scoring models, providing an efficient and objective preoperative risk assessment tool for the perioperative outcomes of NSS.
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.