Compliance of the recurrent renal stone former with current best practice guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient compliance to best practice guidelines is a significant factor in preventing renal stone recurrence. While patient compliance has been historically poor, there remains a paucity of data in the renal stone setting. We evaluated compliance of the recurrent renal stone former with current Canadian Urological Association (CUA) best practice guidelines. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate patient compliance. Recurrent renal stone former patients were consecutively recruited from McMaster's Institute of Urology and completed a one-time questionnaire developed in accordance with CUA best practice guidelines. Questionnaire sections included: 1) demographics; 2) interaction(s) and satisfaction with their healthcare provider; and 3) knowledge, attitudes, and compliance with best practices. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were enrolled in the study; 55.3% were men, 69.5% had a history of stone surgery, while 23.7% had a positive family history. Participants perceived satisfactory education from their urologist and primary care physician 82.7% and 59.7% of the time, respectively (p<0.05). Nearly a quarter of patients (22.8%) perceived their stone disease to be severe and 67.1% of patients believed in the efficacy of preventative stone measures. Overall, 45.8% of patients were compliant with CUA best practice guidelines. The majority of patients (72.6%) complied with high fluid intake, the most critical stone preventative practice. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous studies, compliance to dietary recommendations in this evaluation of recurrent stone formers was low. Study findings may be attributed to insufficient knowledge translation, lack of perceived disease severity, and/or patient uncertainty in the importance of preventative stone practices.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".