MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2768459943 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.4393

Single lower calyceal percutaneous tract combined with flexible nephroscopy: A valuable treatment paradigm for staghorn stones

2017· article· en· W2768459943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stavros Sfoungaristos, Ioannis Mykoniatis, Ioannis Katafigiotis, Ayman Isid, Ofer N. Gofrit, Constantinos Constantinides, Mordechai Duvdevani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercutaneousMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of single lower calyceal tract combined with flexible nephroscopy for the management of staghorn renal stones by percutaneous nephrolithotomy. METHODS: The medical records of patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of staghorn stones were analyzed. We included patients aged >18 years, while patients with incomplete data and renal anatomical anomalies were excluded from the study. Stone-free rate, postoperative complications, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and length of hospitalization were recorded. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated by non-contrast computed tomography scan 4-6 weeks after the operation. Stone-free status was defined as the absence of residual stones >4 mm. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 103 consecutive patients. Stone-free rate was 65.0%. No complications were observed in 69.9% of the cases; most postoperative complications were Grade 1 (13.6%) and 2 (10.7%). Five patients (4.9%) suffered a Grade 3a complication and another patient (1.0%) suffered a Grade 3b complication. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy through a single lower calyceal tract combined with flexible nephroscopy can be a valuable treatment option for the treatment of staghorn calculi, providing efficacy and safety. Nevertheless, the present study is limited by both its retrospective nature and being conducted at a single centre and, thus, proper prospective studies with head-on comparisons are needed to prove or disprove the advantages and disadvantages of either approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments→French-language works237,207→