| Study |
Clinical Purpose |
AI Methods |
Number of Datasets/Subjects |
Performance Results of Model |
| Burton, 2019 |
Diagnosis of urinary tract infection |
Random forest; neural network; extreme gradient boosting |
212,554 reports |
Classification sensitivity above 95% |
| Barzegari, 2018 |
Diagnosis of stress UI |
MLP ANN |
6453 data points (22 patients) |
N/A |
| Geramipour, 2015 |
Real-time estimation of bladder pressure and stimulation to reduce incontinence |
MLP feed forward network levenberg-marquardt (for training) |
3 rats |
Tracking performance at 8.89% (neural network model); 5-s bladder prediction error is about 10.54% |
| Laurikkala, 1999 |
Diagnose female urinary incontinence |
Genetic algorithm-based galactica; C.4.5 |
Trained on 1105 sets; tested on 485 |
Mean prediction accuracy of 91% (C.4.5 rule-based) and 90% (Galactica); Mean descriptive accuracy of 92% (C.4.5 rule-based) and 88% (Galactica) |
| Hung et al., 2019 |
Prediction of urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) |
Deep learning model (DeepSurv) |
Automated performance metrics acquired from 100 patients |
Achieved the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) of 85.9; CI of 0.6 |
| Karem et al., 2016 |
Classification of bladder events such as detrusor contraction for urinary incontinence diagnosis |
Context-Aware Thresholding (CAT) algorithm |
14 human subjects; vesical and abdominal pressure data from 64 tracings from the human subjects |
97% accuracy (CAT); 1.34 false positivity rate (CAT) |
| Huang, 2007 |
Diagnosis of urodynamic Stress incontinence (USI) with computer-aided perineal ultrasound |
MLP neural network with backpropagation algorithm for training |
48 women—36 with USI; 12 normal |
91.7% accuracy; 94.4% sensitivity; 94.4% positive predictive value; 83.3% negative predictive value |