Urolithiasis in the elderly.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Urolithiasis is an increasing problem in patients ≥ 80 years. Our objective was to compare patients ≥ 80 years with urolithiasis to a younger cohort in terms of presentation and management. METHODS: Patients referred to a tertiary care stone clinic for management of urolithiasis over a 5 year period were reviewed. Data collected on clinical parameters for patients ≥ 80 years were compared with a random sample of those < 80 years. RESULTS: There were 26 patients ≥ 80 years and 102 in the sample < 80 years; mean age was 83.5 ± 0.6 and 50.1 ± 1.3 years, respectively. The older group had more comorbidities. The presenting complaint was more often flank pain in younger patients. Patients ≥ 80 years had larger stones. Early ureteric stent insertion was more likely in the elderly compared with the younger group (27% versus 7%, p < 0.01). Definitive therapy for patients ≥ 80 years was most often percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (23%) compared with only 9% in the younger group. In contrast, the most common definitive treatment modality used for patients < 80 years was extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (35% versus 8%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in intraoperative complications. Thirty nine percent of the older group was managed as outpatients. More of the older group had postoperative complications but all were minor. CONCLUSION: Urolithiasis in the elderly is challenging to treat because they have more comorbidities and are less likely to present with classic symptoms of renal colic. This may lead to later presentation with larger and more complex stone disease. Early ureteric stent is often required and definitive PCNL is more likely than in the younger cohort. Despite these issues most can be treated safely and often as an outpatient.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".