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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ObermeyerZ, EmanuelEJ. Predicting the future—Big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. N Engl J Med, 2016; 375:1216.
2.
HashimotoDA, RosmanG, RusD, et al.Artificial intelligence in surgery: Promises and perils. Ann Surg, 2018; 268:70.
3.
BertoloR, HungA, PorpigliaF, et al.Systematic review of augmented reality in urological interventions: The evidences of an impact on surgical outcomes are yet to come. World J Urol, 2020; 38:2167–2176.
4.
LucasM, LiemEI, Savci-HeijinkCD, et al.Toward automated in vivo bladder tumor stratification using confocal laser endomicroscopy. J Endourol, 2019; 33:930–937.
5.
CheccucciE, De CillisS, GranatoS, et al.Applications of neural networks in urology: A systematic review. Curr Opin Urol, 2020; 30:788–807.
6.
ShahM, NaikN, SomaniBK, et al.Artificial intelligence (AI) in urology—Current use and future directions: An iTRUE study. Turk J Urol, 2020; 46:S27–S39.
7.
HameedB, ShahM, NaikN, et al.The ascent of artificial intelligence in endourology: A systematic review over the last 2 decades. Curr Urol Rep, 2021; 22:1–18.
8.
KwongJC, McLoughlinLC, HaiderM, et al.Standardized reporting of machine learning applications in urology: The STREAM-URO framework. Eur Urol Focus, 2021; 7:672–682.
9.
NguyenDD, LuoJW, LuXH, et al.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). BJU Int, 2021; 128:88–94.
10.
ChooMS, UhmnS, KimJK, et al.A prediction model using machine learning algorithm for assessing stone-free status after single session shock wave lithotripsy to treat ureteral stones. J Urol, 2018; 200:1371–1377.
11.
MannilM, von SpiczakJ, HermannsT, et al.Prediction of successful shock wave lithotripsy with CT: A phantom study using texture analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2018; 43:1432–1438.
12.
GomhaMA, SheirKZ, ShowkyS, et al.Can we improve the prediction of stone-free status after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? A neural network or a statistical model?. J Urol, 2004; 172:175–179.
13.
XuZH, ZhouS, JiaCP, et al.Prediction of proximal ureteral stones clearance after shock wave lithotripsy using an artificial neural network. Urol J, 2021; 24:491–496.
14.
SeckinerI, SeckinerS, SenH, et al.A neural network-based algorithm for predicting stone—Free status after ESWL therapy. Int Braz J Urol, 2017; 43:1110–1114.
15.
YangSW, HyonYK, NaHS, et al.Machine learning prediction of stone-free success in patients with urinary stone after treatment of shock wave lithotripsy. BMC Urol, 2020; 20:88.
16.
PoulakisV, DahmP, WitzschU, et al.Prediction of lower pole stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy using an artificial neural network. J Urol, 2003; 169:1250–1256.
17.
MannilM, von SpiczakJ, HermannsT, et al.Three-dimensional texture analysis with machine learning provides incremental predictive information for successful shock wave lithotripsy in patients with kidney stones. J Urol, 2018; 200:829–836.
18.
AminsharifiA, IraniD, PooyeshS, et al.Artificial neural network system to predict the postoperative outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol, 2017; 31:461–467.
19.
AminsharifiA, IraniD, TayebiS, et al.Predicting the postoperative outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy with machine learning system: Software validation and comparative analysis with Guy's Stone score and the CROES nomogram. J Endourol, 2020; 34:692–699.
20.
KadlecAO, OhlanderS, HotalingJ, et al.Nonlinear logistic regression model for outcomes after endourologic procedures: A novel predictor. Urolithiasis, 2014; 42:323–327.
21.
LiuH, WangX, TangK, et al.Machine learning-assisted decision-support models to better predict patients with calculous pyonephrosis. Transl Androl Urol, 2021; 10:710–723.
22.
SolakhanM, SeckinerSU, SeckinerI. A neural network-based algorithm for predicting the spontaneous passage of ureteral stones. Urolithiasis, 2020; 48:527–532.
23.
CummingsJM, BoullierJA, IzenbergSD, et al.Prediction of spontaneous ureteral calculous passage by an artificial neural network. J Urol, 2000; 164:326–328.
24.
Dal MoroF, AbateA, LanckrietGR, et al.A novel approach for accurate prediction of spontaneous passage of ureteral stones: Support vector machines. Kidney Int, 2006; 69:157–160.
25.
ParekattilSJ, KumarU, HegartyNJ, et al.External validation of outcome prediction model for ureteral/renal calculi. J Urol, 2006; 175:575–579.
26.
GoyalNK, KumarA, TrivediS, et al.A comparative study of artificial neural network and multivariate regression analysis to analyze optimum renal stone fragmentation by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl, 2010; 21:1073–1080.
27.
MoorthyK, KrishnanM. Prediction of fragmentation of kidney stones: A statistical approach from NCCT images. Can Urol Assoc J, 2016; 10:E237–E240.
28.
HamidA, DwivediUS, SinghTN, et al.Artificial neural networks in predicting optimum renal stone fragmentation by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: A preliminary study. BJU Int, 2003; 91:821–824.
29.
ShabaniyanT, ParsaeiH, AminsharifiA, et al.An artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support system for large kidney stone treatment. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med, 2019; 42:771–779.
30.
HameedBMZ, ShahM, NaikN, et al.Application of artificial intelligence-based classifiers to predict the outcome measures and stone-free status following percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn calculi: Cross-validation of data and estimation of accuracy. J Endourol, 2021; 20:20.
31.
KazemiY, MirroshandelSA. A novel method for predicting kidney stone type using ensemble learning. Artif Intell Med, 2018; 84:117–126.
32.
DussolB, VerdierJM, Le GoffJM, et al.Artificial neural networks for assessing the risk of urinary calcium stone among men. Urol Res, 2006; 34:17–25.
33.
ZhengJ, YuH, BaturJ, et al.A multicenter study to develop a non-invasive radiomic model to identify urinary infection stone in vivo using machine-learning. Kidney Int, 2021; 12:12.
34.
ZhangGM, SunH, ShiB, et al.Uric acid versus non-uric acid urinary stones: Differentiation with single energy CT texture analysis. Clin Radiol, 2018; 73:792–799.
35.
EstradeV, DaudonM, RichardE, et al.Towards automatic recognition of pure & mixed stones using intraoperative endoscopic digital images. BJU Int, 2021; 16:234–242.
36.
KuzmanovskiI, TrpkovskaM, SoptrajanovB, et al.Determination of the composition of human urinary calculi composed of whewellite, weddellite and carbonate apatite using artificial neural networks. Anal Chim Acta, 2003; 491:211–218.
37.
KuzmanovskiI, ZografskiZ, TrpkovskaM, et al.Simultaneous determination of composition of human urinary calculi by use of artificial neural networks. Fresenius J Anal Chem, 2001; 370:919–923.
38.
BlackKM, LawH, AldoukhiA, et al.Deep learning computer vision algorithm for detecting kidney stone composition. BJU Int, 2020; 125:920–924.
39.
FitriLA, HaryantoF, ArimuraH, et al.Automated classification of urinary stones based on microcomputed tomography images using convolutional neural network. Phys Med, 2020; 78:201–208.
40.
Grose HokampN, LennartzS, SalemJ, et al.Dose independent characterization of renal stones by means of dual energy computed tomography and machine learning: An ex-vivo study. Eur Radiol, 2020; 30:1397–1404.
41.
KriegshauserJS, PadenRG, HeM, et al.Rapid kV-switching single-source dual-energy CT ex vivo renal calculi characterization using a multiparametric approach: Refining parameters on an expanded dataset. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2018; 43:1439–1445.
42.
KahaniM, Hariri TabriziS, Kamali-AslA, et al.A novel approach to classify urinary stones using dual-energy kidney, ureter and bladder (DEKUB) X-ray imaging. Appl Radiat Isot, 2020; 164:109267.
43.
BejanCA, LeeDJ, XuY, et al.Performance of a natural language processing method to extract stone composition from the electronic health record. Urology, 2019; 132:56–62.
44.
CuiX, ZhaoZ, ZhangG, et al.Analysis and classification of kidney stones based on Raman spectroscopy. Biomed Opt Express, 2018; 9:4175–4183.
45.
BlancoF, Lopez-MesasM, SerrantiS, et al.Hyperspectral imaging based method for fast characterization of kidney stone types. J Biomed Opt, 2012; 17:076027.
46.
SacliB, AydinalpC, CansizG, et al.Microwave dielectric property based classification of renal calculi: Application of a kNN algorithm. Comput Biol Med, 2019; 112:103366.
47.
VolmerM, de VriesJC, GoldschmidtHM. Infrared analysis of urinary calculi by a single reflection accessory and a neural network interpretation algorithm. Clin Chem, 2001; 47:1287–1296.
48.
VolmerM, WolthersBG, MettingHJ, et al.Artificial neural network predictions of urinary calculus compositions analyzed with infrared spectroscopy. Clin Chem, 1994; 40:1692–1697.
49.
SelvaraniS, RajendranP. Detection of renal calculi in ultrasound image using meta-heuristic support vector machine. J Med Syst, 2019; 43:300.
50.
Divya KrishnaK, AkkalaV, BharathR, et al.Computer aided abnormality detection for kidney on FPGA based IoT enabled portable ultrasound imaging system. IRBM, 2016; 37:189–197.
51.
LangkvistM, JendebergJ, ThunbergP, et al.Computer aided detection of ureteral stones in thin slice computed tomography volumes using Convolutional Neural Networks. Comput Biol Med, 2018; 97:153–160.
52.
CuiY, SunZ, MaS, et al.Automatic detection and scoring of kidney stones on noncontrast CT images using S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry: Combined deep learning and thresholding methods. Mol Imaging Biol, 2021; 23:436–445.
53.
FernandezK, KorinekM, CampJ, et al.Automatic detection of calcium phosphate deposit plugs at the terminal ends of kidney tubules. Healthc Technol Lett, 2019; 6:271–274.
54.
LeeHJ, KimKG, HwangSI, et al.Differentiation of urinary stone and vascular calcifications on non-contrast CT images: An initial experience using computer aided diagnosis. J Digit Imaging, 2010; 23:268–276.
55.
De PerrotT, HofmeisterJ, BurgermeisterS, et al.Differentiating kidney stones from phleboliths in unenhanced low-dose computed tomography using radiomics and machine learning. Eur Radiol, 2019; 29:4776–4782.
56.
JendebergJ, ThunbergP, LidenM. Differentiation of distal ureteral stones and pelvic phleboliths using a convolutional neural network. Urolithiasis, 2021; 49:41–49.
57.
ChenZ, ProsperiM, BirdVG, et al.Analysis of factors associated with large kidney stones: Stone composition, comorbid conditions, and 24-H urine parameters—A machine learning-aided approach. SN Compr Clin Med, 2019; 1:597–602.
58.
EkenC, BilgeU, KartalM, et al.Artificial neural network, genetic algorithm, and logistic regression applications for predicting renal colic in emergency settings. Int J Emerg Med, 2009; 2:99–105.
59.
ChenZ, BirdVY, RuchiR, et al.Development of a personalized diagnostic model for kidney stone disease tailored to acute care by integrating large clinical, demographics and laboratory data: The diagnostic acute care algorithm - kidney stones (DACA-KS). BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 2018; 18:72.
60.
JungmannF, KampgenB, MildenbergerP, et al.Towards data-driven medical imaging using natural language processing in patients with suspected urolithiasis. Int J Med Inform, 2020; 137:104106.
61.
ChiangD, ChiangHC, ChenWC, et al.Prediction of stone disease by discriminant analysis and artificial neural networks in genetic polymorphisms: A new method. BJU Int, 2003; 91:661–666.
62.
TanthanuchM, TanthanuchS. Prediction of upper urinary tract calculi using an artificial neural network. J Med Assoc Thai, 2004; 87:515–518.
63.
CaudarellaR, TonelloL, RizzoliE, et al.Predicting five-year recurrence rates of kidney stones: An artificial neural network model. Arch Ital Urol Androl, 2011; 83:14–19.
64.
ChenZ, ZengDD, SeltzerRGN, et al.Automated generation of personalized shock wave lithotripsy protocols: Treatment planning using deep learning. JMIR Med Inform, 2021; 9:e24721.
65.
LiG, LiuZ, ZhangY, et al.Discrimination analysis of B-mode ultrasonography and X-ray on the percutaneous nephrolithotomy localization of urinary stones: A prospective, controlled study. Int J Emerg Med, 2016; 9:2261–2268.
66.
MullerS, AbildsnesH, OstvikA, et al.Can a dinosaur think? Implementation of artificial intelligence in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol Open Sci, 2021; 27:33–42.
67.
KhalidSU, SyedA, ShahSSH. Machine learning approaches for the histopathological diagnosis of prostatic hyperplasia. Ann Clin Anal Med, 2020; 11:425–428.
68.
HabesM, BahrJ, SchillerT, et al.New technique for prostate volume assessment. World J Urol, 2014; 32:1559–1564.
69.
ShatalovaO, FilistS, KorenevskiyN, et al.Application of fuzzy neural network model and current-voltage analysis of biologically active points for prediction post-surgery risks. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, 2021; 24:1504–1516.
70.
DjavanB, FongYK, HarikM, et al.Longitudinal study of men with mild symptoms of bladder outlet obstruction treated with watchful waiting for four years. Urology, 2004; 64:1144–1148.
71.
SethiA, ShaL, KumarN, et al.Computer vision detects subtle histological effects of dutasteride on benign prostate. BJU Int, 2018; 122:143–151.
72.
ParekattilSJ, WhiteMD, MoranME, et al.A computer model to predict the outcome and duration of ureteral or renal calculous passage. J Urol, 2004; 171:1436–1439.
73.
NickelJC, AaronL, BarkinJ, et al.Canadian Urological Association guideline on male lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia (MLUTS/BPH): 2018 Update. Can Urol Assoc J, 2018; 12:303.
74.
NayanM, SalariK, BozzoA, et al.Predicting survival after radical prostatectomy: Variation of machine learning performance by race. Prostate, 2021; 81:1355–1364.
75.
ChenJ, RemullaD, NguyenJH, et al.Current status of artificial intelligence applications in urology and their potential to influence clinical practice. BJU Int, 2019; 124:567–577.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
