Prediction of fragmentation of kidney stones: A statistical approach from NCCT images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> We sought to develop a system to predict the fragmentation of stones using non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) image analysis of patients with renal stone disease.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> The features corresponding to first order statistical (FOS) method were extracted from the region of interest in the NCCT scan image of patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment and the breakability was predicted using neural network.</p><p><strong> Results:</strong> When mean was considered as the feature, the results indicated that the model developed for prediction had sensitivity of 80.7% in true positive (TP) cases. The percent accuracy in identifying correctly the TP and true negative (TN) cases was 90%. TN cases were identified with a specificity of 98.4%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Application of statistical methods and training the neural network system will enable accurate prediction of the fragmentation and outcome of ESWL treatment.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".