z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Automated Generation of Personalized Shock Wave Lithotripsy Protocols: Treatment Planning Using Deep Learning
Author(s) -
Zhipeng Chen,
Daniel Zeng,
Ryan Seltzer,
Blake D. Hamilton
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
jmir medical informatics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2291-9694
DOI - 10.2196/24721
Subject(s) - artificial intelligence , deep learning , random forest , machine learning , logistic regression , computer science , mean squared error , shock wave lithotripsy , artificial neural network , medicine , lithotripsy , statistics , surgery , mathematics
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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here