Combining Mean and Standard Deviation of Hounsfield Unit Measurements from Preoperative CT Allows More Accurate Prediction of Urinary Stone Composition Than Mean Hounsfield Units Alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The mineral composition of a urinary stone may influence its surgical and medical treatment. Previous attempts at identifying stone composition based on mean Hounsfield Units (HUm) have had varied success. We aimed to evaluate the additional use of standard deviation of HU (HUsd) to more accurately predict stone composition. METHODS: We identified patients from two centers who had undergone urinary stone treatment between 2006 and 2013 and had mineral stone analysis and a computed tomography (CT) available. HUm and HUsd of the stones were compared with ANOVA. Receiver operative characteristic analysis with area under the curve (AUC), Youden index, and likelihood ratio calculations were performed. RESULTS: Data were available for 466 patients. The major components were calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), uric acid, hydroxyapatite, struvite, brushite, cystine, and CO dihydrate (COD) in 41.4%, 19.3%, 12.4%, 7.5%, 5.8%, 5.4%, and 4.7% of patients, respectively. The HUm of UA and Br was significantly lower and higher than the HUm of any other stone type, respectively. HUm and HUsd were most accurate in predicting uric acid with an AUC of 0.969 and 0.851, respectively. The combined use of HUm and HUsd resulted in increased positive predictive value and higher likelihood ratios for identifying a stone's mineral composition for all stone types but COM. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of CT data aiding in the prediction of brushite stone composition. Both HUm and HUsd can help predict stone composition and their combined use results in higher likelihood ratios influencing probability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".