Using Deep Learning Algorithms to Grade Hydronephrosis Severity: Toward a Clinical Adjunct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grading hydronephrosis severity relies on subjective interpretation of renal ultrasound images. Deep learning algorithms classify images into categories using data-driven methods, thus presenting a promising option for grading hydronephrosis. The current study explored the potential of convolutional neural networks (CNN), a type of deep learning algorithm, to grade hydronephrosis ultrasound images according to the 5-point Society for Fetal Urology (SFU) classification system, and discusses its potential applications in developing decision and teaching aids for clinical practice. We developed a five-layer CNN to grade 2420 sagittal hydronephrosis ultrasound images (191 SFU 0 [8%], 407 SFU I [17%], 666 SFU II [28%], 833 SFU III [34%], and 323 SFU IV [13%]), from 673 patients ranging from 0 to 116.29 months old (Mage=16.53, SD=17.80). Five-way (all grades) and two-way classification problems (i.e. II vs. III, and low [0-II] vs. high [III-IV]) were explored. The CNN classified 94% (95% CI, 93%-95%) of the images correctly or within one grade of the provided label in the five-way classification problem. 51% of these images (95% CI, 49%-53%) were correctly predicted, with an average weighted F1 score of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.47-0.51). The CNN achieved an average accuracy of 78% (95% CI, 75%-82%) with an average weighted F1 of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82) when classifying low vs. high grades, and an average accuracy of 71% (95% CI, 68%-74%) with an average weighted F1 score of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.75) when discriminating between grades II vs. III. Our model performs well above chance level, and classifies almost all images either correctly or within one grade of the provided label. We have demonstrated the applicability of a CNN approach to hydronephrosis ultrasound image classification, and further investigation into a deep learning-based clinical adjunct for hydronephrosis is warranted.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".