The association between renal stones and fasting: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fasting is a common cultural practice worldwide for both religious and dietary reasons. However, there is concern that fasting may be a risk factor for the development of renal stones. To date, there has not been a systematic assessment of the literature regarding the association between renal stones and fasting. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines of three databases: Medline-OVID, EMBASE, and CINAHL. All screening and extraction was completed in parallel with two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 1501 database citations, a total of 10 observational studies with a total of 9906 participants were included. Nine of the studies were conducted in the context of Islamic fasting during Ramadan, with the majority (7/9) finding that renal colic incidence was unaffected by the month of fasting. In contrast, two studies noted an increased incidence among fasting populations. Two other studies noted that urine metabolites and density were altered with fasting but did not translate into clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, it is unlikely that fasting significantly increases the risk of renal stones. Physicians should counsel higher-risk patients on safe fasting 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".