Skip to main content
Log in

Nonlinear logistic regression model for outcomes after endourologic procedures: a novel predictor

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to design a thorough and practical nonlinear logistic regression model that can be used for outcome prediction after various forms of endourologic intervention. Input variables and outcome data from 382 renal units endourologically treated at a single institution were used to build and cross-validate an independently designed nonlinear logistic regression model. Model outcomes were stone-free status and need for a secondary procedure. The model predicted stone-free status with sensitivity 75.3 % and specificity 60.4 %, yielding a positive predictive value (PPV) of 75.3 % and negative predictive value (NPV) of 60.4 %, with classification accuracy of 69.6 %. Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) was 0.749. The model predicted the need for a secondary procedure with sensitivity 30 % and specificity 98.3 %, yielding a PPV of 60 % and NPV of 94.2 %. ROC AUC was 0.863. The model had equivalent predictive value to a traditional logistic regression model for the secondary procedure outcome. This study is proof-of-concept that a nonlinear regression model adequately predicts key clinical outcomes after shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopic lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. This model holds promise for further optimization via dataset expansion, preferably with multi-institutional data, and could be developed into a predictive nomogram in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cummings JM, Boullier JA, Izenberg SD, Kitchens DM, Kothandapani RV (2000) Prediction of spontaneous ureteral calculous passage by an artificial neural network. J Urol 164:326–328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dwyer ME, Krambeck AE, Bergstralh EJ, Milliner DS, Lieske JC, Rule AD (2012) Temporal trends in incidence of kidney stones among children: a 25-year population based study. J Urol 188:247–252

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Golden R (1997) Mathematical models for neural network analysis and design. Bradford Books, Bradford

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gomha MA, Sheir KZ, Showky S, Abdel-Khalek M, Mokhtar AA, Madbouly K (2004) 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 172:175–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kalra P, Togami J, Bansal BSG, Partin AW, Brawer MK, Babaian RJ, Ross LS, Niederberger CS (2003) A neurocomputational model for prostate carcinoma detection. Cancer 98:1849–1854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, Asakura H, Miyajima A, Oya M, Ohigashi T, Murai M (2006) Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 176:1453–1456 (discussion 1456–1457)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Michaels EK, Niederberger CS, Golden RM, Brown B, Cho L, Hong Y (1998) Use of a neural network to predict stone growth after shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 51:335–338

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Niederberger CS (1995) This month in investigative urology. Commentary on the use of neural networks in clinical urology. J Urol 153:1362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Penniston KL, McLaren ID, Greenlee RT, Nakada SY (2011) Urolithiasis in a rural Wisconsin population from 1992 to 2008: narrowing of the male-to-female ratio. J Urol 185:1731–1736

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Poulakis V, Dahm P, Witzsch U, de Vries R, Remplik J, Becht E (2003) Prediction of lower pole stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy using an artificial neural network. J Urol 169:1250–1256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M, Knoll T, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Sarica K, Turk C, Wolf JS Jr, American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc, European Association of Urology (2007) 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52:1610–1631

  12. Ramasamy R, Padilla WO, Osterberg EC, Srivastava A, Reifsnyder JE, Niederberger C, Schlegel PN (2013) A comparison of models for predicting sperm retrieval before microdissection testicular sperm extraction in men with nonobstructive azoospermia. J Urol 189:638–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sun CC, Chang P (2006) Prediction of unexpected emergency room visit after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urolithiasis—an application of artificial neural network in hospital information system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 1113

  14. Wickens TW (2001) Elementary signal detection theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam O. Kadlec.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kadlec, A.O., Ohlander, S., Hotaling, J. et al. Nonlinear logistic regression model for outcomes after endourologic procedures: a novel predictor. Urolithiasis 42, 323–327 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0656-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0656-1

Keywords

Navigation