Percutaneous nephrostomy in women: an audit of more than 300 procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) is inserted for a variety of causes in women and the associated complications should be known by clinicians. Aims : To audit PCN insertions undertaken in women in order to determine the outcome, complications and their management, the age distribution and causes/indications for the procedure. Methods : The PACS and the automated letter systems as well as the laboratory results of the patients were used to obtain the relevant data. Results : Two hundred and seventeen patients underwent 344 PCN insertions with 100% success, 19 patients had 30 complications. No significant hemorrhage developed with 0.9% moderates and minor hemorrhages which settled. There was no death and no severe sepsis. The ages ranged from 17 to 95 years. Nephrostomy tube blockage occurred in 11(3%) patients. The nephrostomy tube fell-out and were replaced in 7(2%). One case of UTI was encountered. There most common indications for the PCN insertions were urinary tract calculi, transitional cell carcinoma of bladder, cervical carcinoma, urosepsis, pyonephrosis, and pregnancy. Conclusions: PCN insertion can be carried out safely in women of all ages including very old patients. The complication rate in our experience is low. Radiology departments should have trained radiologists capable of inserting nephrostomies.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".