Literature DB >> 31886708

Predicting the Postoperative Outcome of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with Machine Learning System: Software Validation and Comparative Analysis with Guy's Stone Score and the CROES Nomogram.

Alireza Aminsharifi1,2, Dariush Irani1, Sona Tayebi1, Taher Jafari Kafash1, Tayebeh Shabanian3, Hossein Parsaei3,4.   

Abstract

Purpose: To validate the output of a machine learning-based software as an intelligible interface for predicting multiple outcomes after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We compared the performance of this system with Guy's stone score (GSS) and the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society (CROES) nomogram. Patients and
Methods: Data from 146 adult patients (87 males, 59%) who underwent PCNL at our institute were used. To validate the system, accuracy of the software for predicting each postoperative outcome was compared with the actual outcome. Similarly, preoperative data were analyzed with GSS and CROES nomograms to determine stone-free status as predicted by these nomograms. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated for each scoring system, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated and used to assess the predictive performance of all three models.
Results: Overall stone-free rate was 72.6% (106/146). Forty of 146 patients (27.4%) were scheduled for 42 ancillary procedures (extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy [SWL] [n = 31] or repeat PCNL [n = 11]) to manage residual renal stones. Overall, the machine learning system predicted the PCNL outcomes with an accuracy ranging between 80% and 95.1%. For predicting the stone-free status, the AUC for the software (0.915) was significantly larger than the AUC for GSS (0.615) or CROES nomograms (0.621) (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: At the internal institutional level, the machine learning-based software was a promising tool for recording, processing, and predicting outcomes after PCNL. Validation of this system against an external dataset is highly recommended before its widespread application.

Entities:  

Keywords:  artificial intelligence; machine learning; percutaneous nephrolithotomy; renal calculus; support vector machines

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31886708     DOI: 10.1089/end.2019.0475

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  6 in total

Review 1.  Artificial intelligence (AI) in urology-Current use and future directions: An iTRUE study.

Authors:  Milap Shah; Nithesh Naik; Bhaskar K Somani; B M Zeeshan Hameed
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-05-27

Review 2.  Artificial Intelligence Applications in Urology: Reporting Standards to Achieve Fluency for Urologists.

Authors:  Andrew B Chen; Taseen Haque; Sidney Roberts; Sirisha Rambhatla; Giovanni Cacciamani; Prokar Dasgupta; Andrew J Hung
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2021-10-23       Impact factor: 2.766

3.  Predicting the Stone-Free Status of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy With the Machine Learning System: Comparative Analysis With Guy's Stone Score and the S.T.O.N.E Score System.

Authors:  Hong Zhao; Wanling Li; Junsheng Li; Li Li; Hang Wang; Jianming Guo
Journal:  Front Mol Biosci       Date:  2022-05-04

4.  A warning system for urolithiasis via retrograde intrarenal surgery using machine learning: an experimental study.

Authors:  Jinho Jeong; Kidon Chang; Jisuk Lee; Jongeun Choi
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 2.090

Review 5.  The Ascent of Artificial Intelligence in Endourology: a Systematic Review Over the Last 2 Decades.

Authors:  B M Zeeshan Hameed; Milap Shah; Nithesh Naik; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Hadis Karimi; Patrick Rice; Peter Kronenberg; Bhaskar Somani
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-10-09       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.