ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Recognizing uric acid type of urinary stones by deep learning.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of deep learning (DL) methods in recognizing uric acid types from images of urinary stones. We curated a single-center cohort of 208 anonymized CT images from patients with urinary calculi. Images were rigorously screened (single calculus, diameter greater than or equal to 3 mm, high quality without artifacts), uniformly preprocessed to 512 × 512, and selected at the patient level (one image per patient) to prevent data leakage. Stones were labeled by Hounsfield Units from clinical reports into three classes—uric acid (0-600 HU), mixed (600–1000 HU), and non-uric acid (greater than 1000 HU)—yielding 50/72/86 images, respectively. We trained and validated these 208 urinary stone images using 7 deep learning (DL) networks and compared classification efficiency. Among seven deep learning models evaluated on the same curated dataset (n = 208), ResNet18 yielded the best performance (accuracy = 0.9808, precision = 0.9828, recall = 0.9761, F1 = 0.9790) and was selected as the final model for urinary stone composition prediction. At the argmax point, class-wise recalls were 94.00% (UA), 98.84% (NUA), and 100% (MIX); corresponding AUCs were 0.984, 0.987, and 0.977 (macro AUC = 0.985), and APs were 0.974, 0.983, and 0.952 (macro AP = 0.970). Sensitivity/specificity reached 0.94/1.00 (UA), 0.9884/0.9918 (NUA), and 1.00/0.9779 (MIX), indicating no missed MIX cases and no false positives for UA. Decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curves (CIC) showed positive net benefit across clinically plausible thresholds (notably around [Formula: see text] ), suggesting efficient capture of true cases with a manageable screening burden. This study suggests that a ResNet18-based deep learning model may support highly accurate, preoperative, noninvasive identification of uric acid stones and has potential clinical utility. The approach has the potential to streamline the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway for urolithiasis and to reduce unnecessary invasive procedures. Future multicenter, prospective investigations will evaluate its real-world generalizability and cost-effectiveness, and explore multimodal data fusion to further improve recognition of complex stones. Our code and datasets are available at https://github.com/wbin2002/UrinaryStone.git .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41452376What 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.