Nomogram to predict uric acid kidney stones based on patient’s age, BMI and 24-hour urine profiles: a multi-center validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We performed a multicentre validation of a nomogram to predict uric acid kidney stones in two populations. METHODS: We reviewed the kidney stone database of two institutions, searching for patients with kidney stones who had stone composition analysis and 24-hour urine collection from January 2010 to December 2013. A nomogram to predict uric acid kidneys stones based on patient age, body mass index (BMI), and 24-hour urine collection was tested. Receiver-operating curves (ROC) were performed. RESULTS: We identified 445 patients, 355 from Cleveland, United States, and 90 from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Uric acid stone formers were 7.9% and 8.9%, respectively. Uric acid patients had a significantly higher age and BMI, as well as significant lower urinary calcium than calcium stone formers in both populations. Uric acid had significantly higher total points when scored according to the nomogram. ROC curves showed an area under the curve of 0.8 for Cleveland and 0.92 for Sao Paulo. The cutoff value that provided the highest sensitivity and specificity was 179 points and 192 for Cleveland and Sao Paulo, respectively. Using 180 points as a cutoff provided a sensitivity and specificity of 87.5% and 68% for Cleveland, and 100% and 42% for Sao Paulo. Higher cutoffs were associated with higher specificity. The main limitation of this study is that only patients from high volume hospitals with uric acid or calcium stones were included. CONCLUSION: Predicting uric acid kidneys stone based on a nomogram, which includes only demographic data and 24-hour urine parameters, is feasible with a high degree of accuracy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".