ArticleUrolithiasis2026
A validated custom pipeline for three-dimensional kidney stone renderings tocreate an open access repository.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) rendering of urologic pathology plays an important role in simulation-based education, surgical training, and computer vision research; however, a standardized, open-access repository of high-fidelity kidney stone models stratified by chemical composition is lacking. We developed and validated a reproducible photogrammetry-based pipeline to generate realistic 3D kidney stone renderings. Chemically characterized human stones composed of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) (n = 11), uric acid (UA) (n = 5), cystine (n = 4), magnesium ammonium phosphate hexahydrate/carbonate apatite (MAPH/CA) (n = 2), and calcium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate (CHPD) (n = 3) were photographed using a custom-built rotating stage and dual fixed 4 K cameras. Rendered models were sent to 25 endourologists using a 5-point Likert-scale survey assessing geometric and surface texture fidelity. Successful 3D renderings were obtained for 8/11 COM stones, 5/5 UA stones, 2/2 MAPH/CA fragments, and 3/3 CHPD fragments, while all cystine stones failed to render. Across stone types, mean fidelity scores were highest for UA and COM stones (mean 3.8-3.9), intermediate for calcium phosphate stones (mean 3.6-3.8), and lowest for struvite stones (mean 3.0-3.3). Geometry scores were higher than texture scores overall, though this difference was not significant. Significant differences in geometric fidelity were observed across stone compositions (χ² = 9.30, p = 0.026). Inter-rater reliability was poor for individual evaluators (ICC = 0.10) but moderate for aggregated mean ratings (ICC = 0.67). This validated workflow enables the creation of generally realistic, open-access 3D kidney stone models (github.com/uro-glidar/3d-rendering-diverse-stones) for simulation, education, and future machine learning applications in endourology.
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.