Variations between two 24-hour urine collections in patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The current Canadian Urological Association (CUA)guideline recommends two 24-hour urine collections in the metabolic evaluation for patients with urolithiasis. The aim of the present study was to compare two consecutive 24-hour urine collections in patients with a history of urolithiasis presenting to a tertiary stone clinic.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 188 patients who had two24-hour collections upon presentation between January 2010 and December 2010. Samples were collected on consecutive days and examined for the following 11 urinary parameters: volume, creatinine, sodium, calcium, uric acid, citrate, oxalate, potassium, phosphorous, magnesium and urea nitrogen. For each parameter, the absolute value of the difference between the two samples rather than the direct difference was compared with zero. Similarly, the percent difference between samples was calculated for each parameter.Results: The means of the absolute differences between the twosamples were significantly different for all 11 urinary parameters(p < 0.0001). The percent differences for all urinary parametersranged from 20.5% to 34.2%. Furthermore, 17.1% to 47.6% ofpatients had a change from a value within normal limits to anabnormal value, or vice-versa. Significance was maintained when patients with incomplete or over-collections were excluded.Conclusions: Significant variations among the two 24-hour urinecollections were observed in all of the 11 urinary parameters analyzed. This variation may change clinical decision-making in up to 47.6% of patients if only a single 24-hour urine collection is obtained. The present study supports the CUA guideline of performing two 24-hour urine collections.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".