SynthesisThe Canadian journal of urology2026
Can AI and predictive models accurately predict stone-free status? a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Canadian journal of urology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and predictive modeling offers prospects for clinical, anatomical, and imaging factor combination, like radiomics, to help with stone-free status (SFS) estimation and peroperative decision-making. The goal of this study was, therefore, to define the present performance range, determine sources of heterogeneity, and determine methodological practices permitting reliable implementation by varied circumstances.
methodsWe searched six bibliographic databases through 19 September 2025. Studies deriving or validating AI/predictive models for SFS after ureteroscopy were eligible. Independent dual screening, duplicate data extraction, and risk-of-bias consideration using QUADAS-AI were conducted.
resultsFive retrospective cohorts were included. Modeling approaches encompassed multivariable logistic regression, regularized/radiomics pipelines, gradient boosting, and ensembles. SFS definitions ranged from <2 mm residual (day-1 to 3 months) to ≤5 mm residual (1 month), determined by plain radiography, ultrasound, and/or CT. The pooled ratio-scale effect for stone size per 1 mm increase was 1.26 (95% CI 0.91-1.76; τ² ≈ 0.055; Q = 18.52; I² = 94.6%; prediction interval 0.03-49.45). Hydronephrosis (moderate-severe vs. mild/none) showed a pooled RR 2.72 (95% CI 0.96-7.72; τ² ≈ 0.821; Q = 65.40; I² = 96.9%; prediction interval 0.03-249.87). As continuous contrasts, stone size was larger in the non-stone-free group (SMD 1.36, 95% CI 0.85-1.86; τ² ≈ 0.096; I² = 72.9%; prediction interval -3.77 to 6.48), and HU was higher (SMD 0.64, 95% CI 0.39-0.90; τ² ≈ 0; Q = 0.73; I² = 0%; prediction interval -0.99 to 2.27).
conclusionsAcross studies evaluating AI and predictive models for ureteroscopy, discrimination was generally acceptable to excellent, and performance appeared highest in models integrating radiomics with anatomic/clinical descriptors. However, the degree of between-study heterogeneity (population mix, outcome definitions, imaging protocols, thresholds, and follow-up windows) was sufficiently large that pooled quantitative estimates should be considered clinically uninterpretable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42086349What 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.