ArticleUrolithiasis2026
Development of a machine learning model for predicting urosepsis after ureteroscopic lithotripsy.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To develop a machine-learning-based predictive model for postoperative urinary sepsis following ureteroscopic lithotripsy, providing a scientific basis for early clinical identification of high-risk patients. A total of 927 patients who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy at a Grade III-A hospital in Guizhou Province from September 2024 to September 2025 were enrolled as the study subjects. Clinical data were collected and randomly divided into a training set (70%) and a test set (30%) according to a 7:3 ratio. Four machine-learning algorithms—SVM, LR, RF, and XGBoost—were used to construct predictive models. The performance of each model was comprehensively evaluated using metrics such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, precision, and F1 score. The clinical utility of each model was further assessed using decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration curves to identify the optimal model. The SHAP method was then employed to analyze the contribution of each variable in the optimal model. The AUC values for the four models—SVM, LR, RF, and XGBoost—were 0.96 (0.93–0.98), 0.95 (0.91–0.98), 0.98 (0.96–1.00), and 0.98 (0.97–1.00), respectively, with the XGBoost model demonstrating the best performance. Variable importance analysis based on the optimal model revealed that the top six key predictors were procalcitonin, albumin, degree of hydronephrosis,5-frailty score, maximum stone diameter, and urinary tract infection.Machine-learning models can effectively predict the risk of postoperative urinary sepsis following ureteroscopic lithotripsy, with the XGBoost model performing the best. The key variables—including patient functional status, stone characteristics, and immune indicators—provide a scientific basis for early identification of uroseptic sepsis and offer a quantifiable decision-making tool for precise prevention and management of postoperative complications.
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.