Is metformin use associated with changes in urinary parameters in stone formers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with an increased risk of nephrolithiasis and is often treated with metformin. The relationship between metformin and nephrolithiasis formation remains unclear, as studies have demonstrated conflicting results. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of stone-forming patients at our stone clinic prior to the initiation of stone-directed medical management. Patients were grouped based on diabetic status and diabetic medication regimen. Outcomes evaluated were 24-hour urinary parameters and specimen stone type using univariate Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-squared analyses. Multivariate analyses controlling for metabolic syndrome components and HbA1c were performed. RESULTS: Data were available for 505 patients, of whom 147 were diabetic and 358 were not. On multivariate analyses controlling for HbA1c and other comorbidities, diabetic patients on metformin still had worse urinary parameters, including urine pH, than non-diabetic patients (pH=-0.33, -0.37, p<0.05). Patients with DM on metformin did not exhibit significant differences in 24-hour urine findings compared to patients with DM not on metformin (p>0.05 for all urinary parameters). CONCLUSIONS: Stone-forming patients with DM on metformin were associated with urinary abnormalities similar to those not on metformin. Cohort studies comparing urinary parameters of patients prospectively started on metformin are necessary to further elucidate metformin's role, if any, in combatting nephrolithiasis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".