Estimating the health‐related quality of life of kidney stone patients: initial results from the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life Machine‐Learning Algorithm (WISQOL‐MLA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To build the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life Machine-Learning Algorithm (WISQOL-MLA) to predict urolithiasis patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) based on demographic, symptomatic and clinical data collected for the validation of the Wisconsin Stone Quality-of-Life (WISQOL) questionnaire, an HRQoL measurement tool designed specifically for patients with kidney stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used data from 3206 stone patients from 16 centres. We used gradient-boosting and deep-learning models to predict HRQoL scores. We also stratified HRQoL scores by quintile. The dataset was split using a standard 70%/10%/20% training/validation/testing ratio. Regression performance was evaluated using Pearson's correlation. Classification was evaluated with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Gradient boosting obtained a test correlation of 0.62. Deep learning obtained a correlation of 0.59. Multivariate regression achieved a correlation of 0.44. Quintile stratification of all patients in the WISQOL dataset obtained an average test AUROC of 0.70 for the five classes. The model performed best in identifying the lowest (0.79) and highest quintiles (0.83) of HRQoL. Feature importance analysis showed that the model weighs in clinically relevant factors to estimate HRQoL, such as symptomatic status, body mass index and age. CONCLUSIONS: Harnessing the power of the WISQOL questionnaire, our initial results indicate that the WISQOL-MLA can adequately predict a stone patient's HRQoL from readily available clinical information. The algorithm adequately relies on relevant clinical factors to make its HRQoL predictions. Future improvements to the model are needed for direct clinical applications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".