Correlation of CT scan versus plain radiography for measuring urinary stone dimensions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To correlate the measured dimensions of urinary stones from spiral non-contrast computerized tomography (CT) with that of plain radiography (KUB). METHODS: The transverse diameter as reported on CT was compared to the measured transverse diameter on KUB for 61 stones. The transverse and craniocaudal dimensions on CT were then re-measured for 30 urinary stones and again compared to the re-measured values for KUB. The craniocaudal dimension on CT was determined by measuring the stone on reconstructed coronal CT images. Measurements between imaging modalities were blinded and performed consecutively by a dedicated investigator. RESULTS: The mean transverse size of the stones on the initial CT report was 6.0 mm +/- 2.8 mm versus 5.6 mm +/- 2.3 mm on KUB (paired t-test, p = 0.05, 95% CI difference between the means -1.3 to 0.5). The stones were categorized in transverse size ranges of 1.0 mm to 5.0 mm, > 5.0 mm to 10.0 mm, and > 10.0 mm. A total of 14 stones failed to be put into the same size categories by the two methods. The largest difference in measurements was 5 mm. In the second analysis, where the CT dimensions were re-measured, the mean transverse dimension on CT was 4.5 mm +/- 2.1 mm versus 4.7 mm +/- 2.0 mm on plain radiography (paired t-test, p = 0.06, 95% CI difference between the means -0.02 to 0.6). Mean craniocaudal dimension of the stones on CT was 7.4 mm +/- 3.2 mm versus 6.0 mm +/- 2.7 mm on plain radiography (paired t-test, p = 0.0001, 95% CI between the means -2.0 to -0.9). When the stones were categorized in transverse size ranges of 1.0 mm to 5.0 mm, >5.0mm to 10.0mm, and >10.0mm, CT and KUB agreed for 30/30 stones. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the initially reported CT transverse values were found to be significantly different from measured KUB values; moreover, large differences of up to 5 mm were found between the measurements. With fastidious measurement of stone dimensions on both CT and KUB, we found that the transverse dimension of stones measured by the two imaging modalities were similar. The craniocaudal measurements of the stones were found to be significantly different on CT versus KUB, with CT measurement being 1.4 mm larger on average.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".