MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547618552 · doi:10.1089/end.2016.0648

Rationale and Design of the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter (ReSKU): A Prospective Observational Registry to Study the Natural History of Urolithiasis Patients

2016· article· en· W2547618552 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helena Chang, David T. Tzou, Manint Usawachintachit, Brian Duty, Ryan S. Hsi, Jonathan D. Harper, Mathew D. Sorensen, Marshall L. Stoller, Roger L. Sur, Thomas Chi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeObservational studyKidney stonesProspective cohort studyUreterDatabaseSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based clinical research in nephrolithiasis is critical to advancing quality in urinary stone disease management and ultimately reducing stone recurrence. A need exists to develop Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant registries that comprise integrated electronic health record (EHR) data using prospectively defined variables. An EHR-based standardized patient database-the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter (ReSKU™)-was developed, and herein we describe our implementation outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Interviews with academic and community endourologists in the United States, Canada, China, and Japan identified demographic, intraoperative, and perioperative variables to populate our registry. Variables were incorporated into a HIPAA-compliant Research Electronic Data Capture database linked to text prompts and registration data within the Epic EHR platform. Specific data collection instruments supporting New patient, Surgery, Postoperative, and Follow-up clinical encounters were created within Epic to facilitate automated data extraction into ReSKU. RESULTS: The number of variables within each instrument includes the following: New patient-60, Surgery-80, Postoperative-64, and Follow-up-64. With manual data entry, the mean times to complete each of the clinic-based instruments were (minutes) as follows: New patient-12.06 ± 2.30, Postoperative-7.18 ± 1.02, and Follow-up-8.10 ± 0.58. These times were significantly reduced with the use of ReSKU structured clinic note templates to the following: New patient-4.09 ± 1.73, Postoperative-1.41 ± 0.41, and Follow-up-0.79 ± 0.38. With automated data extraction from Epic, manual entry is obviated. CONCLUSIONS: ReSKU is a longitudinal prospective nephrolithiasis registry that integrates EHR data, lowering the barriers to performing high quality clinical research and quality outcome assessments in 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207