Renal Stone Disease in Spinal-Cord–Injured Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renal stone disease is common among patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). They frequently have recurrent stones, staghorn calculi, and bilateral stone disease. The potential risk factors for stones in the SCI population are lesion level, bladder management strategy, specific metabolic changes, and frequent urinary tract infections. There has been a reduction in struvite stones among these patients, likely as a result of advances in their urologic care. The clinical presentation of stone disease in patients with SCI may involve frequent urinary infections or urosepsis, and at the time of presentation patients may need emergency renal drainage. The proportion of patients who have their stones treated with different modalities is largely unknown. Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is commonly used to manage stones in patients with SCI, and there have been reports of stone-free rates of 50% to 70%. The literature suggests that the morbidity associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in these patients is considerable. Ureteroscopy is a common modality used in the general population to treat patients with upper tract stone disease. Traditional limitations of this procedure in patients with SCI have likely been overcome with new flexible scopes; however, the medical literature has not specifically reported on its use among patients with SCI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".