Outcome
Type |
Measure |
Description |
Time frame |
Safety issue |
Primary |
Comparison of stone diameter from manual segmentation with radiology report |
Stone diameter (in mm) compared between manual segmentation and radiology report (paired t-test or wilcoxon rank sum test if non-normally distributed data) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Primary |
Comparison of AI-segmentation of stones (DICE-score) with manual segmentation |
DICE-score for AI-segmentation of stones, compared to manual segmenation (gold standard) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Primary |
Prospective performance (diagnostic accuracy) of AI detection of ureteral stone (compared to radiology report (gold standard) |
Comparison of differences in dicotomous proportions in paired data according to Newcombe |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Comparison of stone density from manual segmentation with radiology report |
Stone density (in Hounsfield Units) compared between manual segmentation and radiology report (paired t-test or wilcoxon rank sum test if non-normally distributed data) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Comparison of distention of renal pelvis from manual segmentation with radiology report |
Distention of renal pelvis (in mm) compared between manual segmentation and radiology report (paired t-test or wilcoxon rank sum test if non-normally distributed data) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Comparison of AI-segmentation of stones (Hausdorff distance) with manual segmentation |
Haussdorff distance for AI-segmentation of stones, compared to manual segmenation (gold standard) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Comparison of AI-segmentation of stones (diagnostic accuracy) with manual segmentation |
Diagnostic accuracy for AI-segmentation of stones compared to manual segmenation (gold standard) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Comparison of AI-segmentation of renal pelvis (Dice-score) with manual segmentation |
DICE-score for AI-segmentation of renal pelvis compared to manual segmenation (gold standard) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Comparison of AI-segmentation of renal pelvis (Hausdorff distance) with manual segmentation |
Hausdorff distance for AI-segmentation of renal pelvis compared to manual segmenation (gold standard) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Comparison of AI-segmentation of renal pelvis (diagnostic accuracy) with manual segmentation |
Diagnostic accuracy for AI-segmentation of renal pelvis compared to manual segmenation (gold standard) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Comparison of AI-segmentation of renal parenchyma (DICE-score) with manual segmentation |
DICE-score for AI-segmentation of renal parenchyma compared to manual segmenation (gold standard) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Comparison of AI-segmentation of renal parenchyma (Hausdorff distance) with manual segmentation |
Hausdorff distance for AI-segmentation of renal parenchyma compared to manual segmenation (gold standard) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Comparison of AI-segmentation of renal parenchyma (diagnostic accuracy) with manual segmentation |
Diagnostic accuracy for AI-segmentation of renal parenchyma compared to manual segmenation (gold standard) |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|
Secondary |
Prospective performance (diagnostic accuracy) of AI detection of ureteral obstruction (compared to radiology report (gold standard) |
Comparison of differences in dicotomous proportions in paired data according to Newcombe |
At time of CT examination (inclusion and follow up - expected average 12 weeks) |
|