MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088054556 · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2020.100094

Ureteral Stent Microbiota Is Associated with Patient Comorbidities but Not Antibiotic Exposure

2020· article· en· W3088054556 on OpenAlexafffund
Kait F. Al, John D. Denstedt, Brendan A. Daisley, Jennifer Bjazevic, Blayne Welk, Stephen E. Pautler, Gregory B. Gloor, Gregor Reid, Hassan Razvi, Jeremy P. Burton

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersW. Garfield Weston Foundation
KeywordsStentUrinary systemMedicineAntibioticsUrinePopulationBiomarkerIntensive care medicineInternal medicineMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ureteral stents are commonly used to prevent urinary obstruction but can become colonized by bacteria and encrusted, leading to clinical complications. Despite recent discovery and characterization of the healthy urinary microbiota, stent-associated bacteria and their impact on encrustation are largely underexplored. We profile the microbiota of patients with typical short-term stents, as well as over 30 atypical cases (all with paired mid-stream urine) from 241 patients. Indwelling time, age, and various patient comorbidities correlate with alterations to the stent microbiota composition, whereas antibiotic exposure, urinary tract infection (UTI), and stent placement method do not. The stent microbiota most likely originates from adhesion of resident urinary microbes but subsequently diverges to a distinct, reproducible population, thereby negating the urine as a biomarker for stent encrustation or microbiota. Urological practice should reconsider standalone prophylactic antibiotics in favor of tailored therapies based on patient comorbidities in efforts to minimize bacterial burden, encrustation, and complications of ureteral stents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell Reports MedicineSame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207