MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2980910695 · doi:10.1055/s-0039-1697922

Reply to: Calcium/Citrate Ratio and Risk of Kidney Stone

2019· article· en· W2980910695 sur OpenAlexaff
Misan Lee, Carmen Inés Rodríguez Cuéllar, Ravneet Nagra, Peter Wang, Vipin Bhayana, Guido Filler

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Child Science · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Établissements canadiensLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCalciumKidney stonesMedicineUrologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Letter to: Does the Urinary Calcium/Citrate Ratio Add to the Diagnostic Workup of Children at Risk of Kidney Stones? A Cross-Sectional Study Journal of Child Science 2019; 09(01): e1-e6 DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1677818 Calcium/Citrate Ratio and Risk of Kidney Stone Does the Urinary Calcium/Citrate Ratio Add to the Diagnostic Workup of Children at Risk of Kidney Stones? A Cross-Sectional Study We recently published our article entitled “Does the Urinary Calcium/Citrate (UCa/UCi) Ratio Add to the Diagnostic Workup of Children at Risk of Kidney Stones?” in your prestigious journal.[ 1 ] We have received a letter to the editor by Beuy Joob and Viroj Wiwanikit. In that letter, the authors acknowledge that our findings are in accordance with the literature, especially the study by DeFoor et al.[ 2 ] However, they also highlight that there is sexual variation for urine citrate.[ 3 ] In adults and older adolescents, there clearly is a higher urinary citrate excretion in women as compared with that in men.[ 3 ] Sex differences of the urinary citrate/creatinine ratio have since then been confirmed in adolescents.[ 4 ] These sex differences start with the onset of puberty and may explain the higher prevalence of kidney stones in men.[ 4 ] Interestingly, the substantial increase of nephrolithiasis in children and adolescents, however, is among adolescent girls.[ 5 ] [ 6 ] Our study by Lee M et al[ 1 ] involved 56 males with a median (25th, 75th percentile) age of 8 (3, 15) years and 41 females with a median age of 10 (6.8, 15) years, which was not statistically different ( p = 0.2720, Mann Whitney U test). The details of the patients are listed in [ Table 1 ]. This means that most of the patients were prepubertal. As pointed out, the sex differences begin with the onset of puberty.[ 4 ] The proposed cutoff for assessing the stone risk therefore holds in our patient cohort and the main conclusion that “ U Ca /U Ci rather than U Ci /U Cr may be more predictive in the clinical setting when evaluating for nephrolithiasis” remains adequate as we did not observe any sex differences for the urinary citrate/creatinine ratio ([ Fig. 1 ]). Unfortunately, our cohort of patients was too small to perform a subanalysis of adolescents, and we did not routinely obtain the Tanner stage to precisely determine the onset of puberty. Therefore, we do acknowledge that more work is needed to assess the utility of the urinary U Ca /U Ci as a predictor for nephrolithiasis or urolithiasis in pubertal adolescents. We agree with the conclusion in Joob and Wiwanitkit's letter to the editor that the sex variation should be kept in mind in interpreting U Ca /U Ci in adolescents. We do see many adolescent girls with kidney stones who have normal U Ci /U Cr but abnormal U Ca /U Ci . The reasons for the substantial increase of kidney stones in adolescent girls remain a main question for our ongoing research. Fig. 1 Comparison of urinary citrate/creatinine ratio in the aforementioned study.[ 1 ] There was no significant difference between both sexes. Table 1 Patient characteristics and comparison of parameters Group SF NSF Comparison Test Number of patients 51 46 Age (years, median and IQR) 8 (3,15) 10 (6.8, 15) 0.1755 Mann Whitney Female (%) 19 (37.3%) 22 (47.8%) 0.3074 Fisher's exact test Urinary citrate (mmol/L, median and IQR) 1.55 (0.95, 2.32) 1.675 (0.79, 3.13) 0.7743 Mann Whitney Urinary calcium (mmol/L, median and IQR) 1.87 (1.21, 4.29) 1.0 (0.26, 2.3) 0.0021 Mann Whitney Urinary sodium (mmol/L, median and IQR) 77 (30, 121) 107 (48, 154) 0.0963 Mann Whitney Urinary potassium (mmol/L, median and IQWR) 42 (28, 101) 48 (19, 80) 0.9895 Mann Whitney Urinary creatinine (µmol/L, median and IQR) 3.4 (1.5, 6.8) 4.6 (1.9, 9.0) 0.3878 Mann Whitney Urinary oxalate (µmol/L, median and IQR) 189 (111, 291) 134 (38, 290) 0.1438 Mann Whitney Urinary urate (µmol/L, median and IQR) 1.9 (1, 5.7) 2.3 (1, 12) 0.2544 Mann Whitney Urinary pH (mean ± SD) 6.6 ± 0.91 6.5 ± 0.98 0.7366 t-test Urinary specific gravity (median and IQR) 1.010 (1.005, 1.020) 1.015 (1.005, 1.020) 0.1842 Mann Whitney Urinary citrate/creatinine (mmol/mmol, median and IQR) 0.48 (0.21, 0.90) 0.38 (0.21, 0.86) 0.8784 Mann Whitney Urinary calcium/creatinine (mmol/mmol, median and IQR) 0.67 (0.31, 1.37) 0.24 (0.11, 0.73) 0.0029 Mann Whitney Urinary calcium/citrate (mmol/mmol, median and IQR) 1.30 (0.73, 2.78) 0.68 (0.29, 1.83) 0.0114 Mann Whitney Urinary sodium/potassium (mmol/mmol, mean ± SD) 2.08 ± 1.92 2.50 ± 1.36 0.3185 t -test Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range (25th and 75th percentiles); NSF, non-stone formers; SD, standard deviation, SF, stone formers. Note: Statistically significant differences are in boldface. The comparison column represents the p -value, and in the test column, the test that was used is listed (based on the distribution and data type). Letter to this article: Calcium/Citrate Ratio and Risk of Kidney Stone Journal of Child Science 2019; 09(01): e90-e90 DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697944

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,020

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,021
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0170,019
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Child Science→Même sujetKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→