Quality and cost assessment of Canadian Urological Association microscopic hematuria guidelines in clinical practice: Turning urine into gold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Asymptomatic microscopic hematuria (AMH) is defined in the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) guideline as >2 red blood cells (RBCs) per high-powered field (HPF). Our objective was to evaluate guideline adherence for AMH at our center. Secondarily, we aimed to identify areas of the guideline that can be optimized. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 875 consecutive adults referred to two urologists for hematuria between June 2010 and June 2016. Patient characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes were added to an encrypted Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database. Evaluation of microscopic hematuria reporting was performed by analyzing 681 urine samples reported as 1-5 RBC/HPF. Healthcare costs were obtained from Alberta Health Services (AHS), Data Integration and Management Repository (DIMR), and Alberta Society of Radiologists (ASR). RESULTS: Of the 875 patients referred with hematuria, 400 had AMH. Overall, 96.5% completed evaluation consistent with the CUA guideline. The incidence of pathology requiring surgical intervention was 21/400 (5%) with a 0.8% rate (3/400) of urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) (non-invasive, low-grade). No malignancy was found in non-smokers with normal cytology, normal imaging and <50 RBC/HPF; 44% had AMH in the 1-5 RBCs/HPF range. Only 41% (279/681) of urine samples categorized as 1-5 RBCs/ HPF had guideline-defined microscopic hematuria. By changing local microscopic hematuria reporting to differentiate 1-2 and 3-5 RBCs/HPF, we estimate $745 000 in annual savings. CONCLUSIONS: At our center, CUA AMH guideline adherence is high. We did not find malignancy in non-smokers with normal cytology, imaging and <50 RBC/HPF. We identified and changed regional microscopic hematuria reporting to fit the CUA definition, eliminating unnecessary investigations and healthcare costs.
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 | 0.019 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".