Urinary calculi in aviation pilots: what is the best therapeutic approach?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We reviewed treatment outcomes in a series of aviation pilots treated in the era of modern surgical techniques and provide recommendations regarding treatment in this unique group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of all aviation pilots surgically treated for urinary calculi at our 4 tertiary stone centers from January 1988 to June 2000. Preoperative data and postoperative results were evaluated. Primary outcome measures included stone-free status after initial therapy, time lost from work and overall stone-free rates. Secondary outcome measures included the need for secondary procedures and complications. RESULTS: Of the 36 patients 17 had renal and 19 had ureteral stones. In 4 patients the stones passed spontaneously, while 17 were initially treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (Dornier Medical Systems, Marietta, Georgia), 9 were initially treated with ureteroscopy and 6 were treated with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. There was 1 complication. The stone-free rate for ESWL, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and ureteroscopy after initial therapy was 35%, 100% and 100%, respectively. All patients were rendered stone-free after secondary therapy. Mean time lost from work for ESWL, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and ureteroscopy was 4.7, 2.6 and 1.6 weeks, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aviation pilots with surgical urolithiasis are best treated with an initial endoscopic procedure. Stone-free rates can be maximized, while time lost from work can be minimized when an endoscopic approach is used initially. All pilots with urolithiasis should undergo mandatory metabolic evaluations to institute medical therapy when indicated.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".