Kidney Stones in Primary Hyperoxaluria: New Lessons Learnt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate potential differences in stone composition with regard to the type of Primary Hyperoxaluria (PH), and in relation to the patient's medical therapy (treatment naïve patients versus those on preventive medication) we examined twelve kidney stones from ten PH I and six stones from four PH III patients. Unfortunately, no PH II stones were available for analysis. The study on this set of stones indicates a more diverse composition of PH stones than previously reported and a potential dynamic response of morphology and composition of calculi to treatment with crystallization inhibitors (citrate, magnesium) in PH I. Stones formed by PH I patients under treatment are more compact and consist predominantly of calcium-oxalate monohydrate (COM, whewellite), while calcium-oxalate dihydrate (COD, weddellite) is only rarely present. In contrast, the single stone available from a treatment naïve PH I patient as well as stones from PH III patients prior to and under treatment with alkali citrate contained a wide size range of aggregated COD crystals. No significant effects of the treatment were noted in PH III stones. In disagreement with findings from previous studies, stones from patients with primary hyperoxaluria did not exclusively consist of COM. Progressive replacement of COD by small COM crystals could be caused by prolonged stone growth and residence times in the urinary tract, eventually resulting in complete replacement of calcium-oxalate dihydrate by the monohydrate form. The noted difference to the naïve PH I stone may reflect a reduced growth rate in response to treatment. This pilot study highlights the importance of detailed stone diagnostics and could be of therapeutic relevance in calcium-oxalates urolithiasis, provided that the effects of treatment can be reproduced in subsequent larger studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".