Outcome Analysis of Asymptomatic Lower Pole Stones in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lower pole renal stones in children usually present incidentally. To our knowledge frequency and need for intervention are unknown. We evaluated the outcomes of asymptomatic, incidentally found lower pole renal stones in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts and renal ultrasounds of children with lower pole stones seen during a period of 14 years. The unpaired t-test was used to determine factors that might predict the need for stone intervention, including size, growth rate, type of stone and underlying metabolic disease. The success rate of nonoperative management, defined by spontaneous passage or lack of growth in the absence of symptoms, was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 224 children were found to have lower pole stones. Mean ± SD age at presentation was 95.2 ± 65.3 months. Of the patients 120 (53.6%) spontaneously passed stones. Of the stones 25% remained asymptomatic and did not grow with time. Intervention was performed in 48 children (21.4%). Stones originally managed conservatively that later required intervention were significantly larger at baseline than stones that did not require intervention through the end of followup (median 7 vs 5 mm, p <0.001) and those that grew with time (median stone size 8 mm at surgical intervention, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that asymptomatic lower pole renal stones can be followed conservatively. Of the calculi 78.6% passed spontaneously or remained asymptomatic and did not grow. Median initial size greater than 7 mm and stone growth with time were significant risk factors that predicted the need for intervention.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".