ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Machine learning-based prediction of Clavien-Dindo ≥ II complications after ureteroscopy.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeClavien-Dindo (CD) grade II complications after ureteroscopy occur in approximately 13-17% of cases, typically involving infections or bleeding requiring medical intervention. Thus, the purpose of this study was to create and internally validate a lean prediction model for CD ≥ II complications after ureteroscopy using routinely available perioperative predictors.
methodsRetrospective study of ureteroscopic lithotripsy patients (2010-2014) evaluated outcomes and risk factors. Covariates included age, stone size, operative time, status of impacted stones, and the presence of a percutaneous nephrostomy (PN). The performance of the discriminative models was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals. Overall model performance was further assessed in terms of discrimination, calibration, and accuracy, while clinical utility was evaluated using decision curve analysis. Model explainability was addressed through variable importance measures and complementary interpretability techniques.
resultsA total of 389 patients were included, of whom 8.5% experienced clinically significant complications. The binomial generalized linear model (GLM) with Elastic Net regularization and the gradient boosting model (GBM) were developed using an 80:20 train-test split. In the testing dataset, both models demonstrated excellent discrimination (GLM AUC 0.893 vs. GBM AUC 0.857; p = 0.672). Calibration demonstrated strong performance, and decision curve analysis confirmed that both models outperformed treat-all and treat-none strategies, with GBM showing a modest advantage. Operative time and impacted stones were key predictors. DISCUSSION: By integrating routinely available perioperative variables, the model enables individualized risk stratification and may support preoperative counseling and clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42541663What 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.