MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170423666 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1185

Urolithiasis in adults with congenital megaureter

2013· article· en· W2170423666 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gregory Rosenblatt, Ken Takesita, Gerhard Fuchs

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMegaureterMedicineUrologyUreter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary presentation of congenital megaureter in adults is rare. Development of urolithiasis may lead to this unusual underlying diagnosis. Urinary tract stones can form either within the dilated ureteral segment or in a part of the upper urinary tract proximal to the abnormal ureteral segment. We report two cases of nephrolithiasis that occurred in adults found to have segmental megaureter. The first case is that of a 58-year-old man who presented with left lower quadrant pain. Computed tomography scan revealed a 2-cm stone in the distal left ureter within an area of isolated segmental distal ureteral dilation. The second case is a 48-year-old man who developed recurrent renal urolithiasis associated with isolated distal megaureter.Although a rare condition in adults, congenital megaureter may present when kidney stones develop as a result of the ureteral abnormality. Typically, stones will develop within the dilated segment of ureter. Atypically, stones may develop away from the site of the underlying abnormality. Congenital megaureter is a diagnosis that urologists and radiologists need to consider in the setting of isolated distal ureteral dilation, as the diagnosis of adult megaureter may require more involved surgical measures to prevent recurrence of adverse symptoms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesFrench-language works237,207