ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
A fully optimized deep learning framework for explainable and efficient kidney stone detection in computed tomography imaging.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop and rigorously evaluate a hyperparameter-optimized custom convolutional neural network for kidney stone detection on axial computed tomography (CT) and to compare it, under matched optimization conditions, with widely used pretrained backbones, emphasizing statistical reliability, computational efficiency, and cross-institutional generalization.
methodsA custom convolutional neural network with residual blocks was trained on 3,364 axial CT slices (Stone n = 1,577; Non-stone n = 1,787) under a stratified 70/15/15 split. The same Bayesian hyperparameter optimization (1,000 trials per architecture, tree-structured Parzen estimator) was applied uniformly to the proposed model and six pretrained backbones (ResNet101, DenseNet121, EfficientNetB3, MobileNetV3Large, VGG16, Xception). Robustness was characterized by stratified five-fold cross-validation, ten repeated fixed-split runs with controlled seeds, and 95% confidence intervals. External validation used an independent Bangladesh CT cohort (4,121 slices). Interpretability was probed with Grad-CAM++.
resultsThe proposed model and ResNet101 jointly achieved the best test performance (accuracy 0.9960, F1 0.9957, ROC-AUC ≥ 0.9995). The proposed model attained the lowest single-sample inference latency (2.24 ms; 1.5-53× faster than baselines) with 1.53 M parameters (2.3-28× fewer). Five-fold cross-validation gave Macro-F1 0.9856 ± 0.0036; the Friedman test confirmed significant cross-architecture differences (p < 0.001). 20% in-domain calibration recovered F1 to 0.9806 on the external cohort. Grad-CAM + + activations were anatomically plausible.
conclusionCustom architecture search under a unified Bayesian protocol can match the ceiling of fully-optimized pretrained backbones at a fraction of their computational cost. Methodologically consistent benchmarking, not peak-accuracy reporting, is essential for clinically deployable kidney stone detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42362935What 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.