SERUM PHOSPHATE IN STONE FORMERS: WHAT DOES A LOW SERUM PHOSPHATE LEVEL MEAN?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Metabolic evaluation is indicated in stone formers to identify and subsequently modify risk factors for nephrolithiasis. Some believe that serum phosphate may be an important indicator of nephrolithiasis risk. We determined whether serum phosphate is an independent risk factor for recurrent calcium stone formation and whether it may be used as an early marker for occult disease, such as hyperparathyroidism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of all patients with regular long-term stone clinic followup were reviewed. Initial serum phosphate levels were compared with stone recurrence, complications due to stones, initial visit urinary laboratory values and the medical diagnoses made during followup. Unpaired 2-sample t tests, and correlation and logistic regression analyses were performed with statistical significance at p <0.05. RESULTS: Data were available on 51 men and 25 women 22 to 74 years old (mean age 52). Of the patients 50 were recurrent and 26 were single stone formers. Serum phosphate levels were lower in women than in men. No consistent associations existed between initial or future serum phosphate levels and stone recurrence, complications from stones, urinary values or other medical diagnoses made during followup. CONCLUSIONS: Serum phosphate does not appear to be an independent risk factor for urinary tract stone recurrence or complications, or a reliable early predictor of occult disease.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".