ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Accuracy and precision of automated kidney stone detection on CT.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile computed tomography (CT) is the preferred imaging modality for kidney stone detection and measurement, quantifying the accuracy and precision of stone size metrics is needed, particularly with the growing use of automated image analysis tools to measure kidney stone size.
methodsA phantom study was conducted using 120 kidney stones of various known maximum diameters (ranging from 1.4 to 9.9 mm) and compositions (60 calcium, 30 uric acid, and 30 mixed calcium and uric acid). The stones were placed in an anthropomorphic phantom and CT images were reconstructed with slice thicknesses of 1, 3, or 5 mm and processed using an in-house quantitative Stone Analysis Software (qSAS) to detect each stone and determine its maximum diameter. Separately, we also assessed the agreement between qSAS and a radiologist in determining the maximum diameter of 45 kidney stones on CT images (1-mm slice) from patients.
resultsStone detection frequencies by qSAS for stones in phantoms were 100%, 93%, and 86% for 1-, 3-, and 5-mm CT slice thicknesses, respectively. The proportion of qSAS-detected stones with a diameter error > 1 mm was 5%, 28%, and 64% for 1-, 3-, and 5-mm CT slice thickness, respectively. The CT-measured diameters on 1-mm images were accurate regardless of stone composition. However, diameters with thicker slices trended toward underestimation in uric acid stones and overestimation in calcium and mixed stones. Stone diameter by a radiologist was relatively unbiased but had limited precision with a diameter error > 1 mm occurring in 51% compared to qSAS.
conclusionsThis study quantifies the improved precision with an automated assessment of stone diameter on CT as well as the bias and imprecision that remains across different slice thicknesses and stone compositions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42159670What 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.