Is extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy a risk factor for the development of diabetes mellitus? A population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if patients treated with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) are at a greater risk of developing diabetes mellitus (DM) than those treated with ureteroscopy (URS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study was performed of all ESWL and URS stone treatments done in Ontario between January 1994 and March 2014, utilising linked encoded healthcare databases. The primary outcome was the development of DM >90 days after treatment. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for unadjusted survival analysis and multivariable analysis with Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the risk of DM between the ESWL and URS groups whilst controlling for age, gender, region of residence, income quintile, year of treatment, and comorbidity index. A sensitivity analysis with a subset of ESWL patients treated for left renal or proximal ureteric stones was completed. RESULTS: We identified 106 963 patients who underwent ESWL or URS over the study period with a median follow-up of 6.6 years (ESWL 8.5 years, URS 5.6 years). Unadjusted survival analysis showed an increased risk of developing DM in the ESWL group compared to the URS group (P < 0.001); however, multivariable analysis showed no increased risk of DM in the ESWL cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.02; P = 0.25). Similarly, sensitivity analysis showed no increased risk of DM in the left renal/proximal ureteric stone ESWL cohort compared to the URS cohort (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96-1.13; P = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Our population-based cohort study demonstrated no increased risk of DM in patients undergoing ESWL compared to URS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".