Objectives Urinary biochemistry is used to detect and monitor conditions associated with recurrent kidney stones. There are no predictive machine learning (ML) tools for kidney stone type or recurrence. We therefore aimed to build and validate ML models for these outcomes using age, gender, 24-hour urine biochemistry and stone composition.

Materials and Methods Data from 3 cohorts were used, Southampton, UK (n=3013), Newcastle, UK (n=5984) and Bern, Switzerland (n=794). Of these 3130 had available 24-hour urine biochemistry measurements (calcium, oxalate, urate, pH, volume), and 1684 had clinical data on kidney stone recurrence. Two predictive models were constructed (UK and Swiss) using two ML techniques (Partitioning and Random Forests [RF]) and validated internally with a subset of the same dataset (e.g UK model/UK test set), and externally with the other dataset (UK model/Swiss test set).

Results and Limitations For kidney stone type, on external validation accuracy of UK RF model=0.79 (95% CI: 0.73-0.84), sensitivity: calcium oxalate=0.99 and calcium phosphate/urate=0.00. Specificity: calcium oxalate=0.00 and calcium phosphate/urate=0.99. For the Swiss RF model accuracy=0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89), sensitivity: calcium oxalate=0.99 and calcium phosphate/urate=0.00. Specificity: calcium oxalate=0.00, calcium phosphate=0.00 and urate=1.00.

For stone recurrence, on external validation accuracy of UK RF model=0.22 (95% CI: 0.19-0.25), sensitivity=0.93 and specificity=0.09. Swiss RF model accuracy=0.42 (95% CI: 0.39-0.47), sensitivity=0.03 and specificity=0.97.

Conclusions Neither kidney stone type nor kidney stone recurrence can be accurately predicted using modelling tools built using specific 24-hour urinary biochemistry values alone. Further studies to delineate accurate predictive tools should be undertaken using both known and novel risk factors.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethical approval for this arm of the study was granted by the NHS Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Rec ref: 18/SW/0185; IRAS ID: 240061).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors