This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Informatics, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://medinform.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Background
Though shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has developed to be one of the most common treatment approaches for nephrolithiasis in recent decades, its treatment planning is often a trial-and-error process based on physicians’ subjective judgement. Physicians’ inexperience with this modality can lead to low-quality treatment and unnecessary risks to patients.
Objective
To improve the quality and consistency of shock wave lithotripsy treatment, we aimed to develop a deep learning model for generating the next treatment step by previous steps and preoperative patient characteristics and to produce personalized SWL treatment plans in a step-by-step protocol based on the deep learning model.
Methods
We developed a deep learning model to generate the optimal power level, shock rate, and number of shocks in the next step, given previous treatment steps encoded by long short-term memory neural networks and preoperative patient characteristics. We constructed a next-step data set (N=8583) from top practices of renal SWL treatments recorded in the International Stone Registry. Then, we trained the deep learning model and baseline models (linear regression, logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine) with 90% of the samples and validated them with the remaining samples.
Results
The deep learning models for generating the next treatment steps outperformed the baseline models (accuracy = 98.8%, F1 = 98.0% for power levels; accuracy = 98.1%, F1 = 96.0% for shock rates; root mean squared error = 207, mean absolute error = 121 for numbers of shocks). The hypothesis testing showed no significant difference between steps generated by our model and the top practices (P=.480 for power levels; P=.782 for shock rates; P=.727 for numbers of shocks).
Conclusions
The high performance of our deep learning approach shows its treatment planning capability on par with top physicians. To the best of our knowledge, our framework is the first effort to implement automated planning of SWL treatment via deep learning. It is a promising technique in assisting treatment planning and physician training at low cost.
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL, or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy) has been considered as a safe and effective noninvasive treatment option for nephrolithiasis since its introduction in early 1980s [1]. Reported SWL stone-free rates approach 74%-88% [2,3]; however, it is not without risk. Common contraindications to SWL include pregnancy, coagulopathy or use of platelet aggregation inhibitors, aortic aneurysms, severe untreated hypertension, and untreated urinary tract infections [4]. Failure of SWL treatment results in unnecessary exposure to various complications, such as loin pain, dysuria, analgesia, hematuria, and infection [3,5].
Given such risks, previous studies have identified proper patient selection, modifications in treatment technique, and employment of adjunctive measures as elements to improve SWL outcomes [6]. The treatment outcomes are strongly affected by a variety of preoperative patient characteristics (PPC), including BMI [7-9], stone location, overall stone burden [4], skin-to-stone distance [10,11], stone composition [12,13], stone density [14-17], and variation coefficients of stone density [18]. Various studies have also demonstrated that precise targeting [19,20] and tight coupling [21,22] increase fragmentation probability.
Appropriate control over shock wave delivery has a strong impact on treatment success and minimal complications. A treatment plan for shock wave delivery is a series of shock wave delivery steps with a specified power level, shock rate, and number of shocks; a successful sample SWL treatment plan is shown in Table 1. A plan precisely specifies step-by-step power levels, shock rates, and number of shocks. Each treatment step has a single power level, a constant shock rate, and shocks usually between 500-2500 [23-28]. Physicians are obliged to design plans that both deliver sufficient energy for breaking stones and minimize damage to body tissues. While the range of shock rates is typically 30-180 shocks/minute, a shock rate of 60-90 shocks/minute has been shown to improve efficacy [29-31] and decrease potential injury risks. The main reason is that the slower shock rate of 60-90 shocks/minute allows time for cavitation bubbles caused by the shock to disperse before the next shock arrives. Physicians can check stone fragmentation via x-ray. If the fragments of treated stones are ≤4 mm, they typically pass on their own without further treatment. An SWL treatment has to be stopped to reduce risks of tissue damage when the shock number reaches the maximum limit, even though the treated stone has not broken up.
A sample shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment plan.
Shock wave delivery steps
Power level
Shock rate (per minute)
Number of shocks
Step 1
1
120
100
Step 2
2
120
100
Step 3
3
120
100
Step 4
4
120
100
Step 5
5
120
100
Step 6
6
120
100
Step 7
7
120
100
Step 8
8
120
2300
Effective fragmentation leads to fewer shocks overall and therefore less damage to tissue [32,33]. In order to maximize treatment effect and control tissue damage, ramping protocols have been developed. The low-energy pretreatment allows for better pain management, thus preventing movement and subsequent decoupling of the shock head [34]. Clinical trials support that stepwise voltage ramping is associated with less tissue damage compared with a fixed maximal voltage protocol [23,25,26,35].
Although the strength, rates, and total number of shock waves are identified as the important factors of SWL treatment outcomes, there is no case-by-case guideline for physicians to optimize shock wave delivery protocols that take into account patient demographics and stone characteristics. The optimal energy delivery strategy remains controversial. In vitro and in vivo studies suggest that the strategy of ramping up shock wave energy is beneficial to improve fragmentation and stone clearance and limit renal damage, but clinical results are discordant [6,23]. In the current planning process, physicians adopt a trial-and-error approach to tune treatment plans. This approach involves nonintuitive iterations based on physicians’ subjective decisions. Inexperienced physicians using this method may be more apt to produce inefficient or ineffective treatment plans. Such dependence on physicians’ unique experience also leads to significant variability in the quality and consistency of treatment delivery. Moreover, different types of machines have different designs and different sources for generating shock waves. Therefore, an effective treatment plan for one machine may not transfer to a different machine.
As a result, SWL success rates are significantly different among physicians. Table 2 shows the percentiles of success rates of 171 physicians who recorded outcomes in the International Stone Registry, a database of accumulated treatment records for all patients treated within a national network of SWL services provided by Translational Analytics and Statistics, a lithotripsy service provider. Here, treatment success is defined as treated stone fragments ≤4 mm that typically pass on their own without further treatment. The top 20% of physicians have success rates higher than 94.3%, while the success rates of the bottom 20% of physicians are lower than 79.1%. Such variation indicates that the inexperience with and subjectivity of SWL treatment could lead to unnecessary damage to patients.
Percentiles of treatment success rates.
Percentiles
Treatment success rates, %
Minimum
54.5
10th percentile
74.8
20th percentile
79.1
30th percentile
82.6
40th percentile
84.7
50th percentile
86.6
60th percentile
88.9
70th percentile
91.4
80th percentile
94.3
90th percentile
100
Maximum
100
Machine learning techniques have been applied in the planning process of high-quality personalized treatments, such as radiation therapies [36-39], chemotherapies [40,41] and diabetes treatments [42]. Most machine learning models only take independent vectors as inputs, so they are not suited to the sequential nature of SWL treatment plans. However, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are naturally suited to temporal sequence inputs. Several variants like long short-term memory (LSTM) [43] and gated recurrent unit [44] have been developed for sequential features and applied to disease diagnosis [45,46]. Following these recent works, we aimed to validate the deep learning approach to generate next SWL treatment steps by learning the practices of top physicians and, based on the deep learning approach, develop a system to automatically produce personalized, unbiased, and consistent SWL treatment plans. The generated treatment plans can help physicians minimize the trial-and-error process and develop evidence-based personalized treatment based on PPC, including patient demographics and stone characteristics. An additional benefit is that this treatment planning framework can be generalized to different machine types, so physicians can easily adapt to new generations of SWL machines.
MethodsData
To train and evaluate our models, we used a dataset of renal treatments with Storz SLX-T from the International Stone Registry provided by Translational Analytics and Statistics. Each treatment consisted of PPC and several treatment steps (ie, ternaries of a power level, a shock rate, and number of shocks). The power level ranged from 1 to 9. The options for shock rates were 60, 90, 120, and 180 shocks per minute. The maximum number of shocks was typically set at 3000 for renal stones. The PPC in our dataset included patient gender, age, stone location (one-hot encoding), stone size, mean arterial pressure before treatment, anticoagulant use, sedation use, whether multiple stones existed, and whether strapping was applied.
Our deep learning models were trained with the best treatment plans for obtaining the best planning capability. We selected 54 physicians in the top quartile of treatment success rates. These physicians had more than 91.4% treatment success rates. Then, we selected their successful treatment cases with no reported complications, in which they were stone free or had fragments ≤4 mm and typically passed on their own without further treatment. We identified 1216 cases in total and assumed these cases are the best practices in SWL treatment planning.
We then built the step dataset from the identified successful cases to train and evaluate the step generation model. We identified steps by power level change or shock rate change and limited the number of shocks to 1000 for each step, a natural step length in previous literature [25]. If more than 1000 shocks were delivered under the same power level and the same shock rate, we broke them into multiple steps with 1000 shocks maximum.
Then, we exhaustively decomposed each case into samples by step for the step generation task, where the ternary of each step was generated by its previous steps and PPC. An n-step treatment case was decomposed into n – 1 samples: we used the first i step(s) and PPC as the model inputs and the power level, shock rate, and number of shocks in the (i + 1)th step as the model outputs, where 0 < i < n. For example, the SWL treatment case in Table 1 that consisted of 10 steps after the last 2300 shocks at power level 8 was split into 3 steps: (1) power level = 8, shock rate = 120, number of shocks = 1000; (2) power level = 8, shock rate = 120, number of shocks = 1000; and (3) power level = 8, shock rate = 120, number of shocks = 300. Then, we decomposed this case into 9 samples: (1) The input is the first step (power level = 1, shock rate = 120, number of shocks = 100) and PPC, and the output is the second step (power level = 2, shock rate = 120, number of shocks = 100); (2) the input is the first 2 steps and PPC, and the output is the third step (power level = 3, shock rate = 120, number of shocks = 100); …; and (9) the input is the first 9 steps and PPC, and the output is the last step (power level = 8, shock rate = 120, number of shocks = 300).
At last, we constructed 8583 samples for step generation. We randomly chose 90% of the samples for model training and used the remaining samples for validation. In the data split, we enforced that samples from the same treatment case were only contained within the same split.
Deep Learning for Step Generation
We first built deep neural networks to separately generate power levels, shock rates, and numbers of shocks for the next steps, given previous steps and PPC (Figure 1). Most off-the-shelf machine learning models only take inputs represented as independent vectors rather than a sequence of previous steps. However, RNNs are naturally suited to temporal sequence inputs, so we adopted an RNN variant, the LSTM model [43], which can keep track of arbitrary long-term dependencies in the input sequences, to encode the treatment sequences to vectors. More specifically, assume the i-th step is encoded as a vector xi, then the LSTM model is defined iteratively as follows:
where the initial values c0 and h0 are zero vectors, ° denotes the element-wise product, σ is the sigmoid function, and h1 is the representation of the first i treatment steps.
The framework for automated shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment planning. LSTM: long short-term memory; PPC: preoperative patient characteristics; ReLU: rectifier linear unit.
Then, the encoded previous steps were concatenated to PPC vectors and fed to deep neural networks. In our implementation, we used 2 fully connected layers with a rectifier linear unit (ReLU) function as activation functions, because ReLU functions are nonsaturated and make the model less likely to overfit [47]. At last, we used different classifiers or regressors to generate power levels, shock rates and shock numbers. The formula are as follows.
where hn is the n previous steps encoded by LSTM, and p denotes the PPC vector. The classifiers at the end of the networks were softmax functions for generating power level and shock rate because they are categorical, and we used categorical cross-entropy as the loss functions; for shock number generation in which the output is an integer, we used ReLU as the regressor and mean squared error (MSE) as the loss function. For all the deep neural networks, we chose the Adam SGD optimizer [48,49] in model training.
Statistical Analysis
We hypothesized that the deep learning approach is comparable to the treatment practices of top physicians and that it outperforms machine learning models which do not take treatment sequences as inputs. Thus, we compared the performance of the deep learning model and other up-to-date machine learning models.
Three classical machine learning approaches were selected as baselines for generating power level, shock rate, and number of shocks, respectively. We used logistic regression, random forest classifier (RFC), and support vector classifier (SVC) as the baseline models for power level generation and shock rate generation. We chose linear regression, random forest regression (RFR), and support vector regression (SVR) as the baseline models to generate the number of shocks. As these baseline models could not be fed with sequential data directly, the features for the baseline models were (1) the average power level, average shock rate, and average number of shocks in previous steps; (2) the power level, shock rate, and number of shocks in the last step; and (3) PPC.
We trained the deep learning models and baseline models with 90% of the samples. Then, we validated them with the remaining samples and calculated evaluation metrics. In the multiclass tasks of power level generation and shock rate generation, we used accuracy, macro-averaged precision, macro-averaged recall, and macro-averaged F1 score as the evaluation metrics [50,51]. Accuracy was defined as a ratio of correctly generated observations to the total observations. Suppose the number of categories is n and the confusion matrix of a classifier is a n x n matrix C, where Ci j is the number of samples that is labeled as i but generated as j, then the accuracy is defined as
The precision and recall of category k are defined as
Macro-averaged precision and recall are the average of precisions and recalls for all categories:
The F1 score of category k is defined as the harmonic mean of precision and recall of category k
and macro-averaged F1 score is defined as the average of F1 scores for all categories:
Because the number of shocks is an integer, we used the root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) as the metrics to evaluate the models generating the number of shocks and to measure the average magnitude of errors. At last, we conducted paired t test to detect the difference between treatment steps generated by machine learning models and treatment practices of top physicians.
Results
The deep learning models generated high-quality treatment steps and outperformed the baselines, as summarized in Tables 3-5. In power level generation (Table 3), the accuracy of the deep learning model was 0.988, and the precision, recall, and F1 scores were all 0.980. The best baseline was the SVC, for which the accuracy was 0.981, precision was 0.969, recall was 0.976, and F1 score was 0.972, lower than the performance of the deep learning model. For shock rate generation (Table 4), our model achieved an F1 score of 0.960 along with an accuracy of 0.981, precision of 0.963, and recall of 0.957. Among the baseline models, the logistic regression performed the best in accuracy and precision, at 0.978 and 0.932, respectively, while the RFC had the best recall and F1 score, at 0.986 and 0.956, respectively. Though the recall of the RFC and the logistic regression was better than that of the deep learning model, the accuracy, precision, and F1 score of our proposed model outperformed all the baseline models. The RMSE of the generation of the number of shocks (Table 5) by the deep learning model was 207, about 19% less than the best baseline model RFR. The MAE of the deep learning model was 121, about 23% less than the best baseline model.
Model performance in power level generation.
Model
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1
t statistic
P value
Deep learning
0.988
0.980
0.980
0.980
0.707
.480
Logistic regression
0.974
0.964
0.964
0.964
1.257
.209
RFCa
0.708
0.823
0.859
0.803
4.976
<.001
SVCb
0.981
0.969
0.976
0.972
2.205
.028
aRFC: random forest classifier.
bSVC: support vector classifier.
Model performance in shock rate generation.
Model
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1
t statistic
P value
Deep learning
0.981
0.963
0.957
0.960
0.277
.782
Logistic regression
0.978
0.932
0.960
0.945
2.331
.020
RFCa
0.952
0.930
0.986
0.956
2.064
.039
SVCb
0.976
0.926
0.956
0.939
2.510
.012
aRFC: random forest classifier.
bSVC: support vector classifier.
Model performance in shock number generation.
Model
RMSEa
MAEb
t statistic
P value
Deep learning
207
121
0.350
.727
Linear regression
265
206
0.917
.359
RFRc
255
158
0.628
.530
SVRd
350
173
9.427
<.001
aRMSE: root mean squared error.
bMAE: mean absolute error.
cRFR: random forest regression.
dSVC: support vector regression.
The analysis also tested the difference between the generated step and the ground truth. In the paired t test result, there was no evidence indicating a difference between the generated steps of the deep learning model and treatment steps planned by top physicians, while the outputs of some baseline models significantly deviated from the ground truth. The power levels generated by the RFC and SVC, the shock rates generated by all the baseline models, and the numbers of shocks generated by the SVR were significantly different from the treatment steps in the successful SWL cases of top physicians.
Furthermore, we analyzed the performance of the deep learning models on samples of various treatment sequence lengths to gain a better understanding of how the treatment sequence information could aid decision making. We partitioned the validation dataset into 9 sets by the number of previous treatment steps and summarized the validation results in Tables 6-8. As shown in Table 6, the deep learning model was able to perfectly generate power levels when previous treatment steps were fewer than 6. As the number of previous treatment steps increases, the treatment becomes more complicated and leads to lower performance of power level generation by the deep learning model. The deep learning model reached the lowest accuracy (accuracy = 0.875) and lowest recall (recall = 0.500) in samples containing 9 previous treatment steps and the lowest precision (precision = 0.873) and lowest F1 score (F1 = 0.888) in samples containing 8 previous treatment steps. Similarly, the deep learning model generated highly accurate shock rates in samples with previous treatment steps fewer than 6; the model reached the lowest accuracy (accuracy = 0.889), lowest precision (precision = 0.857), and lowest recall (recall = 0.631) in samples containing 7 previous treatment steps and the lowest F1 score (F1 = 0.861) in samples containing 6 previous treatment steps (Table 7). For the performance of generating the number of shocks (Table 8), the RMSE and MAE generally increased as the number of previous treatment steps increased, and the maximum number of errors appeared in samples with 5 previous treatment steps (RMSE = 365; MAE = 310). The results show the excellent performance of deep learning models in step generation in the first 4-6 steps, where most successful cases end. It reflects the reliability of deep learning models in aiding treatment decision making. Longer treatment lengths typically indicate treatment difficulties; even our deep learning models cannot generate treatment steps with high accuracy in these rare cases.
Power level generation performance in samples containing different numbers of previous treatment steps.
Number of previous treatment steps
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1
1
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
2
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
3
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
4
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
5
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
6
0.983
0.980
0.980
0.980
7
0.926
0.915
0.939
0.925
8
0.889
0.873
0.914
0.888
9
0.875
0.875
0.500
0.933
Shock rate generation performance in samples containing different numbers of previous treatment steps.
Number of previous treatment steps
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1
1
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
2
0.992
0.997
0.972
0.984
3
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
4
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
5
0.992
0.997
0.974
0.985
6
0.975
0.976
0.802
0.861
7
0.889
0.857
0.631
0.888
8
0.917
0.864
0.642
0.902
9
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Performance of the generation of the number of shocks in samples containing different numbers of previous treatment steps.
Number of previous treatment steps
RMSEa
MAEb
1
31
25
2
32
17
3
34
24
4
139
60
5
365
310
6
317
233
7
273
190
8
275
242
9
99
76
aRMSE: root mean squared error.
bMAE: mean absolute error.
The validation showed that the capability of the deep learning model for step generation is on par with that of top physicians. Based on the high-quality step generation, we generated treatment plans by iteratively generating steps with the trained models (Figure 1). We started from an empty treatment sequence. We fed PPC and the current treatment sequence into the step generation model. The generated next step was then added to the current treatment sequence. We repeated such a process until the total number of shocks reached the upper limit. If a physician confirms stone fragmentation via x-ray before reaching the maximum limit of the number of shocks, they can stop immediately; if the number of shocks reaches the maximum limit, the physician has to stop for risk control. Thus, the generated treatment sequence is enough to guide practice. The specifications of individual lithotripters limit the maximum number of shocks per session to 2000-4500 [4], and for the majority of treatments of upper ureteral and renal stones, the range is 2000-3500 [52]. We used 3000 as the upper limit in our implementation, which is a typical shock limit in renal stone treatment practices and can be adjusted according to shock wave generating machines.
DiscussionPrincipal Findings
Previous literature has shown a series of work on standardizing SWL treatment [2,53]; however, energy delivery is still controversial and unclear [4,6], relying on physicians’ subjective judgement. Manual treatment design is significantly affected by nonstandardizable radiographic appearance of stones, bias to a low power level for fear of complications, and preconceived expectations. Our study utilized deep learning to generate treatment steps and developed a framework for automated SWL treatment planning.
The analysis results revealed that deep learning models for treatment step generation effectively learn from SWL treatment plans and achieve the step generation capability of top physicians. The performance comparison indicated that utilization of a previous treatment sequence in deep learning improves the quality of generated steps. By iteratively generating treatment steps, our automated planning framework can avoid human biases and generate personalized, high-quality, and consistent SWL treatment plans based on PPC, including patient demographics and stone characteristics. With the help of these automatically generated treatment plans, physicians can minimize the trial-and-error process and implement evidence-based personalized treatment. This framework can be generalized to different machine types, so physicians can easily adapt to new generations of SWL machines.
Limitations
Our proposed model only learns and imitates the best practices, but cannot perform better than them. Even the best physician cannot plan successful SWL treatment plans for all cases, so successful difficult cases, including those requiring long treatment sequences, are rare for model training. Therefore, our model may be good at planning easier cases, but less adept in rare difficult cases, similar to physicians’ actual practice. As the treatment cases, especially successful difficult cases, accumulate, our model is likely to gain an expert-level planning capability to handle difficult cases.
Due to data limitations, we were only able to consider a small set of patient demographics and stone characteristics. However, our framework can be easily extended to utilize a larger set of parameters than has previously been used. Moreover, the data are retrospective. Therefore, clinical studies are warranted to confirm the effectiveness and efficiency of this framework.
Conclusions
To the best of our knowledge, our framework is the first effort to implement automated planning of SWL treatment via deep learning. Its assistance for inexperienced urologists in designing SWL treatment plans is useful in both SWL treatment planning and physician training. While the applications of machine learning in diagnosis are becoming more mature, few studies exist in automated treatment plan generation. Our approach is a step forward in exerting the potential of machine learning in medical sciences.
AbbreviationsLSTM
long short-term memory
MAE
mean absolute error
MSE
mean squared error
PPC
preoperative patient characteristics
ReLU
rectifier linear unit
RFC
random forest classifier
RFR
random forest regression
RMSE
root mean squared error
RNN
recurrent neural network
SVC
support vector classifier
SVR
support vector regression
SWL
shock wave lithotripsy
All authors designed the study. RGNS provided the data. ZC and DDZ developed the deep learning model for treatment plan generation. ZC implemented and evaluated the deep learning model and drafted the manuscript. All authors revised the manuscript.
RGNS was an employee of Translational Analytics and Statistics. BDH is a consultant for NextMed Management Services. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.
ChaussyCBrendelWSchmiedtEExtracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock wavesLancet19801213282071265810.1016/s0140-6736(80)92335-16108446S0140-6736(80)92335-1AssimosDKrambeckAMillerNLMongaMMuradMHNelsonCPPaceKTPaisVMPearleMSPremingerGMRazviHShahOMatlagaBRSurgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART IJ Urol201610196411536010.1016/j.juro.2016.05.09027238616S0022-5347(16)30531-6Al-MarhoonMSShareefOAl-HabsiISAl BalushiASMathewJVenkiteswaranKPExtracorporeal Shock-wave Lithotripsy Success Rate and Complications: Initial Experience at Sultan Qaboos University HospitalOman Med J201307284255910.5001/omj.2013.7223904918OMJ-D-12-00583PMC3725239ReynoldsLFKroczakTPaceKTIndications and contraindications for shock wave lithotripsy and how to improve outcomesAsian J Urol2018105425626310.1016/j.ajur.2018.08.00630364729S2214-3882(18)30071-7PMC6197584SkolarikosAAlivizatosGde la RosetteJExtracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their preventionEur Urol20061150598190; discussion 99010.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.04516481097S0302-2838(06)00104-7McClainPDLangeJNAssimosDGOptimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive reviewRev Urol2013152496024082843PMC3784968PareekGArmenakasNAPanagopoulosGBrunoJJFracchiaJAExtracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield unitsUrology20050165133610.1016/j.urology.2004.08.00415667858S0090-4295(04)00939-2PerksAESchulerTDLeeJGhiculeteDChungDD'A HoneyRJPaceKTStone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsyUrology200810724765910.1016/j.urology.2008.05.04618674803S0090-4295(08)00754-1HatibogluGPopeneciuVKuroschMHuberJPahernikSPfitzenmaierJHaferkampAHohenfellnerMPrognostic variables for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment success: no impact of body mass index (BMI) using a third generation lithotripterBJU Int20111010871192710.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10007.x21342413WiesenthalJDGhiculeteDRayAAHoneyRJDPaceKTA clinical nomogram to predict the successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral calculiJ Urol20110818625566210.1016/j.juro.2011.03.10921684557S0022-5347(11)03454-9PatelTKozakowskiKHrubyGGuptaMSkin to stone distance is an independent predictor of stone-free status following shockwave lithotripsyJ Endourol2009092391383510.1089/end.2009.039419694526DretlerSPSpecial article: calculus breakability--fragility and durilityJ Endourol199402811310.1089/end.1994.8.18186775RingdénIdaTiseliusHComposition and clinically determined hardness of urinary tract stonesScand J Urol Nephrol20074143162310.1080/0036559060115455117763224770234128OuzaidIAl-qahtaniSDominiqueSHupertanVFernandezPHermieuJDelmasVRaveryVA 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients' selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective studyBJU Int20121211011 Pt BE4384210.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10964.x22372937El-NahasAREl-AssmyAMMansourOSheirKZA prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomographyEur Urol200706516168893; discussion 169310.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.04817161522S0302-2838(06)01497-7JosephPMandalASinghSMandalPSankhwarSSharmaSComputerized Tomography Attenuation Value of Renal Calculus: Can It Predict Successful Fragmentation of the Calculus by Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy? A Preliminary StudyJournal of Urology20020516751968197110.1016/s0022-5347(05)65064-111956419S0022-5347(05)65064-1AbdelhamidMMosharafaAAIbrahimHSelimHMHamedMElghoneimyMNSalemHKAbdelazimMSBadawyHA Prospective Evaluation of High-Resolution CT Parameters in Predicting Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Success for Upper Urinary Tract CalculiJ Endourol20161130111227123210.1089/end.2016.036427597174YamashitaSKohjimotoYIguchiTNishizawaSIbaAKikkawaKHaraIVariation Coefficient of Stone Density: A Novel Predictor of the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave LithotripsyJ Endourol20170431438439010.1089/end.2016.071928052698BohrisCStiefCGStrittmatterFImprovement of SWL Efficacy: Reduction of the Respiration-Induced Kidney Motion by Using an Abdominal Compression PlateJ Endourol201604304411610.1089/end.2015.068126558296HoneyRJHealyMYeungMPsihramisKEJewettMAThe Use of an Abdominal Compression Belt to Reduce Stone Movement During Extracorporeal Shock Wave LithotripsyJournal of Urology1992091483 Part 21034103510.1016/s0022-5347(17)36808-81507324S0022-5347(17)36808-8PishchalnikovYANeucksJSVonDerHaarRJPishchalnikovaIVWilliamsJCMcAteerJAAir pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energyJ Urol2006121766 Pt 127061010.1016/j.juro.2006.07.14917085200S0022-5347(06)01934-3PMC2435067JainAShahTKEffect of air bubbles in the coupling medium on efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsyEur Urol20070651616806; discussion 168610.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.04917112655S0302-2838(06)01349-2RabahDMMabroukiMSFarhatKHSeidaMAArafaMATalicRFComparison of escalating, constant, and reduction energy output in ESWL for renal stones: multi-arm prospective randomized studyUrolithiasis20170645331131610.1007/s00240-016-0912-72768768110.1007/s00240-016-0912-7ConnorsBAEvanAPHandaRKBlomgrenPMJohnsonCDLiuZLingemanJEUsing 300 Pretreatment Shock Waves in a Voltage Ramping Protocol Can Significantly Reduce Tissue Injury During Extracorporeal Shock Wave LithotripsyJ Endourol2016093091004810.1089/end.2016.008727307070PMC5031095LambertEHWalshRMorenoMWGuptaMEffect of escalating versus fixed voltage treatment on stone comminution and renal injury during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trialJ Urol2010021832580410.1016/j.juro.2009.10.02520018316S0022-5347(09)02660-3HandaRKMcAteerJAConnorsBALiuZLingemanJEEvanAPOptimising an escalating shockwave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during shockwave lithotripsyBJU Int20121211011 Pt CE1041710.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11207.x22612388PMC3749741McAteerJAEvanAPWilliamsJCLingemanJETreatment protocols to reduce renal injury during shock wave lithotripsyCurr Opin Urol200903192192510.1097/mou.0b013e32831e16e319195131PMC3755614HoneyRJDRayAAGhiculeteDUniversity of Toronto Lithotripsy AssociatesPaceKTShock wave lithotripsy: a randomized, double-blind trial to compare immediate versus delayed voltage escalationUrology201001751384310.1016/j.urology.2008.12.07019896176S0090-4295(09)00136-8PishchalnikovYAMcAteerJAWilliamsJCPishchalnikovaIVVonderhaarRJWhy stones break better at slow shockwave rates than at fast rates: in vitro study with a research electrohydraulic lithotripterJ Endourol2006082085374110.1089/end.2006.20.53716903810PMC2442574PishchalnikovYAMcAteerJAWilliamsJCEffect of firing rate on the performance of shock wave lithotriptorsBJU Int200812102111681610.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07896.x18710450BJU7896PMC2588648KangDHChoKSHamWSLeeHKwonJKChoiYDLeeJYComparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-AnalysisPLoS One2016117e015866110.1371/journal.pone.015866127387279PONE-D-15-34567PMC4936716DeliusMJordanMEizenhoeferHMarlinghausEHeineGLiebichHGBrendelWBiological effects of shock waves: Kidney haemorrhage by shock waves in dogs—Administration rate dependenceUltrasound in Medicine & Biology1988114868969410.1016/0301-5629(88)90025-73212839WillisLREvanAPConnorsBAShaoYBlomgrenPMPrattJHFinebergNSLingemanJEShockwave lithotripsy: dose-related effects on renal structure, hemodynamics, and tubular functionJ Endourol20051919010110.1089/end.2005.19.9015735392MobleyTBMyersDAGrineWBJenkinsJMJordanWRLow Energy Lithotripsy with the Lithostar: Treatment Results with 19,962 Renal and Ureteral CalculiJournal of Urology19930614961419142410.1016/s0022-5347(17)36404-28501779S0022-5347(17)36404-2SkuginnaVNguyenDPSeilerRKissBThalmannGNRothBDoes Stepwise Voltage Ramping Protect the Kidney from Injury During Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy? Results of a Prospective Randomized TrialEur Urol2016026922677310.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.01726119561S0302-2838(15)00520-5FanJWangJChenZHuCZhangZHuWAutomatic treatment planning based on three-dimensional dose distribution predicted from deep learning techniqueMed Phys20190146137038110.1002/mp.1327130383300SmithWPKimMHoldsworthCLiaoJPhillipsMHPersonalized treatment planning with a model of radiation therapy outcomes for use in multiobjective optimization of IMRT plans for prostate cancerRadiat Oncol20160311113810.1186/s13014-016-0609-72696868710.1186/s13014-016-0609-7PMC4788837NicolaeAMortonGChungHLoblawAJainSMitchellDLuLHelouJAl-HanaqtaMHeathERaviAEvaluation of a Machine-Learning Algorithm for Treatment Planning in Prostate Low-Dose-Rate BrachytherapyInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2017031597482282910.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.11.03628244419S0360-3016(16)33494-0MakRHEndresMGPaikJHSergeevRAAertsHWilliamsCLLakhaniKRGuinanECUse of Crowd Innovation to Develop an Artificial Intelligence-Based Solution for Radiation Therapy TargetingJAMA Oncol201905015565466110.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0159309988082730638PMC6512265LeeSCelikSLogsdonBALundbergSMMartinsTJOehlerVGEsteyEHMillerCPChienSDaiJSaxenaABlauCABeckerPSA machine learning approach to integrate big data for precision medicine in acute myeloid leukemiaNat Commun20180103914210.1038/s41467-017-02465-52929897810.1038/s41467-017-02465-5PMC5752671LinHWeiNChouTLinCLanYChangSWangHYangSChenWLinTLinJJiangJBuilding personalized treatment plans for early-stage colorectal cancer patientsOncotarget2017022188138051381710.18632/oncotarget.146382809915314638PMC5355140DoubledayKZhouHFuHZhouJAn Algorithm for Generating Individualized Treatment Decision Trees and Random ForestsJ Comput Graph Stat201827484986010.1080/10618600.2018.145133732523325PMC7286561HochreiterSSchmidhuberJLong short-term memoryNeural Comput199711159817358010.1162/neco.1997.9.8.17359377276ChoKvan MerrienboerBGulcehreCBahdanauDBougaresFSchwenkHBengioYLearning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translationCornell University20142021-04-24https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1078GulshanVPengLCoramMStumpeMCWuDNarayanaswamyAVenugopalanSWidnerKMadamsTCuadrosJKimRRamanRNelsonPCMegaJLWebsterDRDevelopment and Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy in Retinal Fundus PhotographsJAMA20161213316222402241010.1001/jama.2016.17216278989762588763ChoiESchuetzAStewartWFSunJUsing recurrent neural network models for early detection of heart failure onsetJ Am Med Inform Assoc2017030124236137010.1093/jamia/ocw11227521897ocw112PMC5391725XuLChoyCSLiYWDeep sparse rectifier neural networks for speech denoising2016IEEE International Workshop on Acoustic Signal Enhancement (IWAENC)September 13-16, 2016Xi'an, China10.1109/iwaenc.2016.7602891KingmaDPBaJAdam: A method for stochastic optimizationCornell University20142021-04-24https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980ReddiSJKaleSKumarSOn the convergence of Adam and beyondCornell University20192021-04-24https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09237ManningCDRaghavanPSchützeHNatural language engineeringIntroduction to information retrieval2010Cambridge, MACambridge University Press100103NarasimhanHPanWKarPProtopapasPRamaswamyHGOptimizing the multiclass F-measure via biconcave programming2017IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)December 12-15, 2016Barcelona, Spain10.1109/icdm.2016.0143RassweilerJJKnollTKöhrmannKUMcAteerJALingemanJEClevelandROBaileyMRChaussyCShock wave technology and application: an updateEur Urol2011055957849610.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.03321354696S0302-2838(11)00165-5PMC3319085TürkCPetříkASaricaKSeitzCSkolarikosAStraubMKnollTEAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for UrolithiasisEur Urol2016036934758210.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.04126344917S0302-2838(15)00700-9