Clinical Applications of Machine Learning for Urolithiasis and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Previous systematic reviews related to machine learning (ML) in urology often overlooked the literature related to endourology. Therefore, we aim to conduct a more focused systematic review examining the use of ML algorithms for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) or urolithiasis. In addition, we are the first group to evaluate these articles using the Standardized Reporting of Machine Learning Applications in Urology (STREAM-URO) framework. Methods: Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases were conducted from inception through July 12, 2021. Keywords included those related to ML, endourology, urolithiasis, and BPH. Two reviewers screened the citations that were eligible for title, abstract, and full-text screening, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Two reviewers extracted information from the studies, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. The data collected were then qualitatively synthesized by consensus. Two reviewers evaluated each article according to the STREAM-URO checklist with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Results: After identifying 459 unique citations, 63 articles were retained for data extraction. Most articles consisted of tabular ( n = 32) and computer vision ( n = 23) tasks. The two most common problem types were classification ( n = 40) and regression ( n = 12). In general, most studies utilized neural networks as their ML algorithm ( n = 36). Among the 63 studies retrieved, 58 were related to urolithiasis and 5 focused on BPH. The urolithiasis studies were designed for outcome prediction ( n = 20), stone classification ( n = 18), diagnostics ( n = 17), and therapeutics ( n = 3). The BPH studies were designed for outcome prediction ( n = 2), diagnostics ( n = 2), and therapeutics ( n = 1). On average, the urolithiasis and BPH articles met 13.8 (standard deviation 2.6), and 13.4 (4.1) of the 26 STREAM-URO framework criteria, respectively. Conclusions: The majority of the retrieved studies effectively helped with outcome prediction, diagnostics, and therapeutics for both urolithiasis and BPH. While ML shows great promise in improving patient care, it is important to adhere to the recently developed STREAM-URO framework to ensure the development of high-quality ML studies.
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 | 0.015 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".