External validation of the S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We perform external validation of the S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring system for the preoperative assessment of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) outcomes. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, all PCNLs performed from 2009 to 2013 at a tertiary referral centre were reviewed. The S.T.O.N.E. score was calculated and correlated with stone-free status, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 155 PCNLs were included, with 100 (64.5%) males and 55 (35.5%) females. The mean age was 54.9 ± 1.2 years (range: 17-85), with a mean body mass index of 26.9 ± 0.5 kg/m(2) (range: 17.2-51). The mean S.T.O.N.E. score was 7.67 ± 0.1 (range: 5-12), with a mean stone size of 609.8 ± 48.4 mm(2) (range: 250-4030), a mean Hounsfield unit of 887.7 ± 25.3 (range: 222-1766), a mean tract length of 97.3 ± 1.9 mm (range: 53-175), a mean operative time of 100.1 ± 2.8 min (range: 60-240), and a mean LOS of 4.2 ± 0.3 days (range: 1-18). The overall stone-free rate after the primary procedure was 71.6%. The S.T.O.N.E. score significantly affected stone-free status (p = 0.001) and EBL (p = 0.003). There was significant correlation between the S.T.O.N.E. score and operative time (r = 0.4; p < 0.001) and LOS (r = 0.3; p = 0.001). Therefore, the higher the S.T.O.N.E. score, the longer the operative time, the higher the EBL, the longer the LOS, and the lower the chance of being stone-free. The overall complication rate after the primary procedure was 15.5%, which did not correlate with the S.T.O.N.E. score (p = 0.9). CONCLUSION: Although this study externally validates the S.T.O.N.E. scoring system, its accuracy is comparable to stone size and number of involved calyces in predicting stone-free status post-PCNL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".