Literature DB >> 15201765

Can we improve the prediction of stone-free status after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? A neural network or a statistical model?

Mohamed A Gomha1, Khaled Z Sheir, Saeed Showky, Mohamed Abdel-Khalek, Alaa A Mokhtar, Khaled Madbouly.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated whether an artificial neural network (ANN) can improve the prediction of stone-free status after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia) for ureteral stones compared to a logistic regression (LR) model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 1989 and December 1998, 984 patients with ureteral stones, including 780 males and 204 females with a mean age +/- SD of 40.85 +/- 10.33 years, were treated with ESWL. Stone-free status at 3 months was determined by urinary tract plain x-ray and excretory urography. Of all patients 919 (93.3%) were free of stones. The impact of 10 factors on stone-free status was studied using an LR model and ANN. These factors were patient age and sex, renal anatomy, stone location, side, number, length and width, whether stones were de novo or recurrent, and stent use. An LR model was constructed and ANN was trained on 688 randomly selected patients (70%) to predict stone-free status at 3 months. The 10 factors were used as covariates in the LR model and as input parameters to ANN. Performance of the trained net and developed logistic model was evaluated in the remaining 296 patients (30%), who served as the test set. The sensitivity (percent of correctly predicted stone-free cases), specificity (percent of correctly predicted nonstonefree cases), positive predictive value, overall accuracy and average classification rate of the 2 techniques were compared. Relevant variables influencing the construction of the 2 models were compared.
RESULTS: Evaluating the performance of the LR and ANN models on the test set revealed a sensitivity of 100% and 77.9%, a specificity of 0.0% and 75%, a positive predictive value of 93.2% and 97.2%, an overall accuracy of 93.2% and 77.7%, and an average classification rate of 50% and 76.5%, respectively. LR failed to predict any nonstone free cases. LR and ANN identified stone location and stent use as important factors in determining the outcome, while ANN also identified stone length and width as influential factors.
CONCLUSIONS: ANN and LR could predict adequately those who would be stone-free after ESWL for ureteral stones. The neural network has a higher ability to predict those who fail to respond to ESWL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15201765     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000128646.20349.27

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  12 in total

1.  Prediction of outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteric calculi.

Authors:  Mingqing Wang; Qiduo Shi; Xuguang Wang; Kun Yang; Rui Yang
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-04-18

2.  Does previous failed ESWL have a negative impact of on the outcome of ureterorenoscopy? A matched pair analysis.

Authors:  Prodromos Philippou; David Payne; Kim Davenport; Anthony G Timoney; Francis X Keeley
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Nonlinear logistic regression model for outcomes after endourologic procedures: a novel predictor.

Authors:  Adam O Kadlec; Samuel Ohlander; James Hotaling; Jessica Hannick; Craig Niederberger; Thomas M Turk
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Is shock wave lithotripsy efficient for the elderly stone formers? Results of a matched-pair analysis.

Authors:  Prodromos Philippou; Djelali Lamrani; Konstantinos Moraitis; Christian Bach; Junaid Masood; Noor Buchholz
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2011-09-08

5.  Factors Affecting the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Urinary Stone Treatment.

Authors:  Sanjay Shinde; Younis Al Balushi; Medhat Hossny; Sachin Jose; Salma Al Busaidy
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2018-05

6.  A systematic review of the applications of Expert Systems (ES) and machine learning (ML) in clinical urology.

Authors:  Hesham Salem; Daniele Soria; Jonathan N Lund; Amir Awwad
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 7.  Machine learning applications to enhance patient specific care for urologic surgery.

Authors:  Patrick W Doyle; Nicholas L Kavoussi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Double J stent reduces the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones.

Authors:  Caroline Pettenati; Amine Benchikh El Fegoun; Vincent Hupertan; Sébastien Dominique; Vincent Ravery
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2013-11-18

9.  Shock-wave lithotripsy in the elderly: Safety, efficacy and special considerations.

Authors:  Prodromos Philippou; D Lamrani; Konstantinos Moraitis; Hassan Wazait; Junaid Masood; Noor Buchholz
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2011-05-06

10.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of lower ureteric stones: Outcome and criteria for success.

Authors:  Mohammad Abdelghany; Tarek Zaher; Rafik El Halaby; Tarek Osman
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2011-05-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.