Validating Automated Kidney Stone Volumetry in CT and Mathematical Correlation with Estimated Stone Volume Based on Diameter
To validate AutoMated UroLithiasis Evaluation Tool (AMULET) software for kidney stone volumetry and compare its performance to standard clinical practice. Maximum diameter and volume of 96 urinary stones were measured as reference standard by three independent urologists. The same stones were positi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of endourology 2018-07, Vol.32 (7), p.659-664 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 664 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 659 |
| container_title | Journal of endourology |
| container_volume | 32 |
| creator | Wilhelm, Konrad Miernik, Arkadiusz Hein, Simon Schlager, Daniel Adams, Fabian Benndorf, Matthias Fritz, Benjamin Langer, Mathias Hesse, Albrecht Schoenthaler, Martin Neubauer, Jakob |
| description | To validate AutoMated UroLithiasis Evaluation Tool (AMULET) software for kidney stone volumetry and compare its performance to standard clinical practice.
Maximum diameter and volume of 96 urinary stones were measured as reference standard by three independent urologists. The same stones were positioned in an anthropomorphic phantom and CT scans acquired in standard settings. Three independent radiologists blinded to the reference values took manual measurements of the maximum diameter and automatic measurements of maximum diameter and volume. An "expected volume" was calculated based on manual diameter measurements using the formula: [Formula: see text] Results: Ninety-six stones were analyzed in the study. We had initially aimed to assess 100. Nine were replaced during data acquisition due of crumbling and four had to be excluded because the automated measurement did not work. Mean reference maximum diameter was 13.3 mm (5.2-32.1 mm). Correlation coefficients among all measured outcomes were compared. The correlation between the manual and automatic diameter measurements to the reference was 0.98 and 0.91, respectively (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1089/end.2018.0058 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2049935165</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2049935165</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c293t-aba571c3618d1f1beedb20c81685701c6e302c396796688794ccce1cfee649fc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkM9PwyAYQInRuDk9ejUcvXRCu1I4zjp_xBkPzsVbQ-lXh2npBBqzxD9elk3jiQAvL9_3EDqnZEwJF1dgqnFMKB8TkvIDNKRpmkWCkLdDNAz_cZRlggzQiXMfhNCE0eQYDWLBGeFZPETfS9noSnpt3vG0910rPVT4UVcGNvjFdwbwsmv6FrzdYG1wvsDSVPhJ-hUEVivZ4LyzFppw6Qz-0n6FZ87rnei_AV9LF54CdKNlEII9RUe1bByc7c8Rer2dLfL7aP5895BP55GKReIjWco0oyrMzita0xKgKmOiOGU8zQhVDBISq0SwTDDGeSYmSimgqgZgE1GrZIQud9617T57cL5otVPQNNJA17siJhMhkpSyNKDRDlW2c85CXaxt2MVuCkqKbfAiBC-2wYtt8MBf7NV92UL1R_8WTn4ASeZ9fQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2049935165</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validating Automated Kidney Stone Volumetry in CT and Mathematical Correlation with Estimated Stone Volume Based on Diameter</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Wilhelm, Konrad ; Miernik, Arkadiusz ; Hein, Simon ; Schlager, Daniel ; Adams, Fabian ; Benndorf, Matthias ; Fritz, Benjamin ; Langer, Mathias ; Hesse, Albrecht ; Schoenthaler, Martin ; Neubauer, Jakob</creator><creatorcontrib>Wilhelm, Konrad ; Miernik, Arkadiusz ; Hein, Simon ; Schlager, Daniel ; Adams, Fabian ; Benndorf, Matthias ; Fritz, Benjamin ; Langer, Mathias ; Hesse, Albrecht ; Schoenthaler, Martin ; Neubauer, Jakob</creatorcontrib><description>To validate AutoMated UroLithiasis Evaluation Tool (AMULET) software for kidney stone volumetry and compare its performance to standard clinical practice.
Maximum diameter and volume of 96 urinary stones were measured as reference standard by three independent urologists. The same stones were positioned in an anthropomorphic phantom and CT scans acquired in standard settings. Three independent radiologists blinded to the reference values took manual measurements of the maximum diameter and automatic measurements of maximum diameter and volume. An "expected volume" was calculated based on manual diameter measurements using the formula: [Formula: see text] Results: Ninety-six stones were analyzed in the study. We had initially aimed to assess 100. Nine were replaced during data acquisition due of crumbling and four had to be excluded because the automated measurement did not work. Mean reference maximum diameter was 13.3 mm (5.2-32.1 mm). Correlation coefficients among all measured outcomes were compared. The correlation between the manual and automatic diameter measurements to the reference was 0.98 and 0.91, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean reference volume was 1200 mm
(10-9000 mm
). The correlation between the "expected volume" and automatically measured volume to the reference was 0.95 and 0.99, respectively (p < 0.001).
Patients' kidney stone burden is usually assessed according to maximum diameter. However, as most stones are not spherical, this entails a potential bias. Automated stone volumetry is possible and significantly more accurate than diameter-based volumetric calculations. To avoid bias in clinical trials, size should be measured as volume. However, automated diameter measurements are not as accurate as manual measurements.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0892-7790</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-900X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0058</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29860872</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><ispartof>Journal of endourology, 2018-07, Vol.32 (7), p.659-664</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c293t-aba571c3618d1f1beedb20c81685701c6e302c396796688794ccce1cfee649fc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c293t-aba571c3618d1f1beedb20c81685701c6e302c396796688794ccce1cfee649fc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27911,27912</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29860872$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wilhelm, Konrad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miernik, Arkadiusz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hein, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schlager, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Fabian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benndorf, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fritz, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langer, Mathias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hesse, Albrecht</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schoenthaler, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, Jakob</creatorcontrib><title>Validating Automated Kidney Stone Volumetry in CT and Mathematical Correlation with Estimated Stone Volume Based on Diameter</title><title>Journal of endourology</title><addtitle>J Endourol</addtitle><description>To validate AutoMated UroLithiasis Evaluation Tool (AMULET) software for kidney stone volumetry and compare its performance to standard clinical practice.
Maximum diameter and volume of 96 urinary stones were measured as reference standard by three independent urologists. The same stones were positioned in an anthropomorphic phantom and CT scans acquired in standard settings. Three independent radiologists blinded to the reference values took manual measurements of the maximum diameter and automatic measurements of maximum diameter and volume. An "expected volume" was calculated based on manual diameter measurements using the formula: [Formula: see text] Results: Ninety-six stones were analyzed in the study. We had initially aimed to assess 100. Nine were replaced during data acquisition due of crumbling and four had to be excluded because the automated measurement did not work. Mean reference maximum diameter was 13.3 mm (5.2-32.1 mm). Correlation coefficients among all measured outcomes were compared. The correlation between the manual and automatic diameter measurements to the reference was 0.98 and 0.91, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean reference volume was 1200 mm
(10-9000 mm
). The correlation between the "expected volume" and automatically measured volume to the reference was 0.95 and 0.99, respectively (p < 0.001).
Patients' kidney stone burden is usually assessed according to maximum diameter. However, as most stones are not spherical, this entails a potential bias. Automated stone volumetry is possible and significantly more accurate than diameter-based volumetric calculations. To avoid bias in clinical trials, size should be measured as volume. However, automated diameter measurements are not as accurate as manual measurements.</description><issn>0892-7790</issn><issn>1557-900X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkM9PwyAYQInRuDk9ejUcvXRCu1I4zjp_xBkPzsVbQ-lXh2npBBqzxD9elk3jiQAvL9_3EDqnZEwJF1dgqnFMKB8TkvIDNKRpmkWCkLdDNAz_cZRlggzQiXMfhNCE0eQYDWLBGeFZPETfS9noSnpt3vG0910rPVT4UVcGNvjFdwbwsmv6FrzdYG1wvsDSVPhJ-hUEVivZ4LyzFppw6Qz-0n6FZ87rnei_AV9LF54CdKNlEII9RUe1bByc7c8Rer2dLfL7aP5895BP55GKReIjWco0oyrMzita0xKgKmOiOGU8zQhVDBISq0SwTDDGeSYmSimgqgZgE1GrZIQud9617T57cL5otVPQNNJA17siJhMhkpSyNKDRDlW2c85CXaxt2MVuCkqKbfAiBC-2wYtt8MBf7NV92UL1R_8WTn4ASeZ9fQ</recordid><startdate>201807</startdate><enddate>201807</enddate><creator>Wilhelm, Konrad</creator><creator>Miernik, Arkadiusz</creator><creator>Hein, Simon</creator><creator>Schlager, Daniel</creator><creator>Adams, Fabian</creator><creator>Benndorf, Matthias</creator><creator>Fritz, Benjamin</creator><creator>Langer, Mathias</creator><creator>Hesse, Albrecht</creator><creator>Schoenthaler, Martin</creator><creator>Neubauer, Jakob</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201807</creationdate><title>Validating Automated Kidney Stone Volumetry in CT and Mathematical Correlation with Estimated Stone Volume Based on Diameter</title><author>Wilhelm, Konrad ; Miernik, Arkadiusz ; Hein, Simon ; Schlager, Daniel ; Adams, Fabian ; Benndorf, Matthias ; Fritz, Benjamin ; Langer, Mathias ; Hesse, Albrecht ; Schoenthaler, Martin ; Neubauer, Jakob</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c293t-aba571c3618d1f1beedb20c81685701c6e302c396796688794ccce1cfee649fc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wilhelm, Konrad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miernik, Arkadiusz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hein, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schlager, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Fabian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benndorf, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fritz, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langer, Mathias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hesse, Albrecht</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schoenthaler, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, Jakob</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of endourology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wilhelm, Konrad</au><au>Miernik, Arkadiusz</au><au>Hein, Simon</au><au>Schlager, Daniel</au><au>Adams, Fabian</au><au>Benndorf, Matthias</au><au>Fritz, Benjamin</au><au>Langer, Mathias</au><au>Hesse, Albrecht</au><au>Schoenthaler, Martin</au><au>Neubauer, Jakob</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validating Automated Kidney Stone Volumetry in CT and Mathematical Correlation with Estimated Stone Volume Based on Diameter</atitle><jtitle>Journal of endourology</jtitle><addtitle>J Endourol</addtitle><date>2018-07</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>659</spage><epage>664</epage><pages>659-664</pages><issn>0892-7790</issn><eissn>1557-900X</eissn><abstract>To validate AutoMated UroLithiasis Evaluation Tool (AMULET) software for kidney stone volumetry and compare its performance to standard clinical practice.
Maximum diameter and volume of 96 urinary stones were measured as reference standard by three independent urologists. The same stones were positioned in an anthropomorphic phantom and CT scans acquired in standard settings. Three independent radiologists blinded to the reference values took manual measurements of the maximum diameter and automatic measurements of maximum diameter and volume. An "expected volume" was calculated based on manual diameter measurements using the formula: [Formula: see text] Results: Ninety-six stones were analyzed in the study. We had initially aimed to assess 100. Nine were replaced during data acquisition due of crumbling and four had to be excluded because the automated measurement did not work. Mean reference maximum diameter was 13.3 mm (5.2-32.1 mm). Correlation coefficients among all measured outcomes were compared. The correlation between the manual and automatic diameter measurements to the reference was 0.98 and 0.91, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean reference volume was 1200 mm
(10-9000 mm
). The correlation between the "expected volume" and automatically measured volume to the reference was 0.95 and 0.99, respectively (p < 0.001).
Patients' kidney stone burden is usually assessed according to maximum diameter. However, as most stones are not spherical, this entails a potential bias. Automated stone volumetry is possible and significantly more accurate than diameter-based volumetric calculations. To avoid bias in clinical trials, size should be measured as volume. However, automated diameter measurements are not as accurate as manual measurements.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>29860872</pmid><doi>10.1089/end.2018.0058</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0892-7790 |
| ispartof | Journal of endourology, 2018-07, Vol.32 (7), p.659-664 |
| issn | 0892-7790 1557-900X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2049935165 |
| source | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| title | Validating Automated Kidney Stone Volumetry in CT and Mathematical Correlation with Estimated Stone Volume Based on Diameter |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T00%3A47%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validating%20Automated%20Kidney%20Stone%20Volumetry%20in%20CT%20and%20Mathematical%20Correlation%20with%20Estimated%20Stone%20Volume%20Based%20on%20Diameter&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20endourology&rft.au=Wilhelm,%20Konrad&rft.date=2018-07&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=659&rft.epage=664&rft.pages=659-664&rft.issn=0892-7790&rft.eissn=1557-900X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1089/end.2018.0058&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2049935165%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2049935165&rft_id=info:pmid/29860872&rfr_iscdi=true |