MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092350179 · doi:10.4103/0970-1591.74463

Current status of retrograde intrarenal surgery for management of nephrolithiasis in children

2010· article· en· W2092350179 on OpenAlexaff
WalidA Farhat, Yaser El‐Hout, Aziza Elnaeema

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Urology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous nephrolithotomyShock wave lithotripsyUrinary systemTreatment modalityPercutaneousLithotripsyMEDLINESurgeryNephrostomyModalitiesIntensive care medicineGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To review the current status of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones in children focusing on its indications, outcomes and success in the management of nephrolithiasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1988 and 2009, a comprehensive PubMed/MEDLINE literature review on RIRS was conducted. RESULTS: The available literature is limited and heterogeneous, skewed by favorable results on ureteral stone outcomes. However, recent case series report outcomes comparable to time-honored modalities: percutaneous nephrolithotomy and shock wave lithotripsy. Concerns about urinary tract damage are not substantiated by the yet available intermediate-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS seems to be an effective modality in pediatric nephrolithiasis management. However, long-term outcomes and comparative prospective randomized studies are awaited.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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