ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Establishing an AI-based artifact correction system for intrarenal pressure monitoring using the LithoVue™ Elite ureteroscope: an EAU endourology and AUSET collaboration : Author list.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. 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
purposeIntrarenal pressure (IRP) management during endoscopic surgery for urolithiasis is critical to minimize postoperative pain and infectious complications. However, pressure sensors at the ureteroscope tip often register various artifacts when contacting the pelvicalyceal or ureteral wall, leading to significant deviations from true IRP values. This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning model to detect and remove artifacts from IRP data accurately. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed 27 retrograde intrarenal surgeries performed using the Boston Scientific® LithoVue™ Elite system across academic institutions in Japan and Hong Kong. 32 waveform features were identified and three tree-based machine learning models—Random Forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM—were trained for automated artifact detection. Endpoints included agreement with ground-truth labels and comparison of time efficiency between artificial intelligence (AI)-based and manual annotations.
resultsThe best-performing model achieved an overall agreement of 93.6% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.95. Each case included 94 artifacts, contributing 258 s per surgery. Artifacts accounted for 31% of the time > 30 mmHg and 72% of the time > 100 mmHg. Without correction, peak IRP was overestimated by 184 mmHg (median, 257 vs. 73 mmHg). False negatives > 60 mmHg had a median 0.0 s per case. AI-based IRP annotation saved 99.95% of the time compared to manual review (1.8 s vs. 56.6 min per case).
conclusionsThe model successfully achieved high-precision artifact removal from IRP data. This system may serve as a standardized process for accurate IRP analysis during endoscopic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.