Renal colic and urolithiasis practice patterns in Canada: a survey of Canadian Urological Association members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We describe the practice variability of CUA (Canadian Urological Association) members and factors which predict these patterns for common stone scenarios. METHODS: We asked 308 English- and 52 French-speaking CUA members to complete online surveys in their respective languages. We collected demographic information on fellowship training, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) access, academic setting and whether they are at a hospital with regionalized surgical services. Respondents indicated their actual as well as ideal treatment for scenarios of renal, proximal and distal ureteric calculi. RESULTS: In total, 131 urologists responded (36% response rate), all of whom treated urolithiasis. Of this number, 17% had endourology fellowship training, 76% had access to SWL, 42% were at an academic institution and 66% were at institutions with regionalized surgical services. Actual and ideal treatment modalities selected for symptomatic, distal and proximal ureteric stones (4, 8, 14 mm) were consistent with published guidelines. There were discrepancies between the use of ureteroscopy and SWL in actual versus ideal scenarios. Actual and ideal practices were congruent for proximal ureteric stones and asymptomatic renal calculi. In multivariate analysis, respondents were less likely to perform ureteroscopy on proximal 4- and 8-mm stones if they were at a hospital with regionalized surgical services (OR: 0.097; 95% CI: 0.01-0.76, p = 0.03 and OR: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.13-0.83, p = 0.02). INTERPRETATION: There is clinical variability in the management of urolithiasis in Canada; however, management approaches fall within published guidelines. Type of hospital and access to operating room resources may affect treatment modality selection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".