Clinical Correlates of Urolithiasis in Ankylosing Spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between urolithiasis and syndesmophyte formation and the effect of urolithiasis on ankylosing spondylitis (AS) disease activity. METHODS: In a longitudinal cohort of 504 patients with AS, we conducted an analysis of all patients with AS who have a history of urolithiasis. All patients met the modified New York criteria for AS. Demographics, clinical characteristics, extraarticular features, and comorbidities are systematically recorded in the database. We compared disease activity, functional indices, medical therapy and radiographic damage between AS patients with (Uro+) and without urolithiasis (Uro-) using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS). RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients with AS (7.5%) had a history of urolithiasis in our cohort. Seventy-six patients with AS who did not have urolithiasis, matched for age, sex, and ethnicity, were selected as controls. Patients who were Uro+ were more likely to have more functional disability, based on the Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI; mean 5.3 vs 3.6 in control group, p = 0.003). Trends were noted in the Uro+ group toward higher Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI; mean 4.9 vs 4.0, p = 0.09), more peripheral joint involvement (p = 0.075), and higher frequency of biologic therapy (p = 0.09). No significant difference was detected in mSASSS or the Bath AS Metrology Index (BASMI). Significant association with diabetes mellitus (DM; p = 0.016) and Crohn's disease (p = 0.006) was noted in the Uro+ group. CONCLUSION: Although there is no acceleration of syndesmophyte formation or spinal mobility restriction, more functional disability was detected in the urolithiasis group. The higher risk with concomitant DM or Crohn's disease should alert clinicians to these comorbidities in Uro+ patients with AS.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".