Changes in Urolithiasis Referral Patterns for Shock Wave Lithotripsy over a Decade: Was There Adherence to AUA/EAU Guidelines?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to assess changes in referral patterns of urolithiasis for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) over a decade. The secondary objective was to evaluate the effect of the number of years of practice of referring physicians on these referral patterns. METHODS: A retrospective review of SWL database was performed for consecutive referrals for SWL at a tertiary stone center between December 1999 and December 2013. Patient demographics and stone characteristics were assessed. The stone location at the time of referral was used as the reference. Retreatments were excluded. In addition, years of practice of the referring physicians were calculated. The 2007 AUA/EAU guidelines on urolithiasis were considered as a reference. RESULTS: A total of 8,992 SWL treatments were included. After December 2007, there was a significant increase in the percentage of renal pelvic stones referred for SWL (23.0 vs. 27.1%, p < 0.001). Conversely, proximal ureteral stones significantly decreased after 2007 (24 vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001) including stones > 10 mm (5.1 vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001). Otherwise, there were no changes in the referral patterns for SWL of other stone locations before and after December 2007 (p > 0.05). Furthermore, percentage of stones referred for SWL by urologists practicing for less than 10 years significantly decreased after December 2007 (29.5 vs. 22.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The significant reduction in the referral of proximal ureteral stones after December 2007 corresponds to the latest AUA/EAU guidelines on management of ureteral stones.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".