Significant differences in struvite and cystine stone frequency seen among Chinese nephrolithiasis patients living in North America compared to those living in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interracial disparities in nephrolithiasis prevalence have been reported, but the interplay between genetics and the environment for urinary stone disease risk factors is poorly understood. To examine how environment may alter genetic predisposition for stone formation, we established the International Chinese Consortium on Nephrolithiasis (ICCON) as a multi-institutional collaboration to examine patterns of nephrolithiasis presentation between Chinese patients living in different countries. METHODS: Chinese patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) at six participating institutions in China and North America over 4 years were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics and clinical data were compared between Chinese patients living in China and North America. RESULTS: A total of 806 patients were included, encompassing 721 Chinese patients living in China and 85 living in North America. Nephrolithiasis patients living in China were more likely to be male (67% vs. 56%, P=0.02), present at a younger age (48.6±15.0 vs. 55.0±13.0 years, P<0.01), and have a lower BMI (24.6±4.0 vs. 25.9±5.7, P=0.04) but were less likely to form struvite stones (5.5% vs. 14.1%, P<0.01). No cystine stone patients were seen in North American Chinese patients, whereas 1.8% of nephrolithiasis patients living in China presented with cystine stones. Similar rates of calcium-based and uric acid calculi as well as urinary pH were seen among both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist between Chinese nephrolithiasis patients living in China compared to those living in North America, highlighting the importance of environmental factors in addition to genetics in modulating risk for urinary stone disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".