MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035364856 · doi:10.14740/wjnu206w

Does 24-Hour Urine Supersaturation Predict Stone Composition?

2015· article· en· W2035364856 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Omar, Sarah Tarplin, Alla El Deen El Mahdy, Manoj Monga

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Nephrology and Urology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalcium oxalateUrinary stoneUrineUric acidMedicineOxalateComposition (language)SupersaturationAnimal scienceUrinary systemInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the correlation between 24-hour urine supersaturation (SS) levels and the crystalline stone composition. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the results of stone analysis of 386 patients who had completed 24-hour urine stone risk profiles within 2 months of stone analysis. Patients were characterized as calcium oxalate (CAOX), calcium phosphate (CAPH) or uric acid (UA) stone formers based on the predominant component (> 60%) of their stone. Patients with < 50% of one stone composition were characterized as a mixed stone former. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the 24-hour urine SS for predicting the corresponding stone component were calculated. Results: The distribution of stone compositions was 235 (61%) CAOX, 98 (25%) CAPH, 35 (9%) UA and 18 (5%) mixed stone group. At predominant stone mineral concentration >= 60%, the accuracy of 24-hour urine SS for predicting the predominant stone composition was 52.5% for CAOX, 70% for CAPH and 67% for UA group. Even when the predominant stone mineral concentration was >= 90%, the accuracy of SS did not improve: COAX (49%, P = 0.6641), CAPH (77%, P = 0.361) and UA (67%, P = 0.9593). Conclusions: Twenty-four-hour urine SS has a poor accuracy to predict the predominant stone composition. Accuracy is highest for patients with CAPH stones. World J Nephrol Urol. 2015;4(1):169-172 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/wjnu206w

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Nephrology and UrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207