MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205213822 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.7364

Does volume matter? Incorporating estimated stone volume in a nomogram to predict ureteral stone passage

2021· article· en· W3205213822 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nassib Abou Heidar, Muhieddine Labban, David‐Dan Nguyen, Adnan El‐Achkar, M. Mansour, Naeem Bhojani, Rami Nasr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramMedicineConfidence intervalReceiver operating characteristicVolume (thermodynamics)Nuclear medicineOdds ratioSurgeryUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Recent studies have shown that software-generated 3D stone volume calculations are better predictors of stone burden than measured maximal axial stone diameter. However, no studies have assessed the role of formula estimated stone volume, a more practical and cheaper alternative to software calculations, to predict spontaneous stone passage (SSP). Methods: We retrospectively included patients discharged from our emergency department on conservative treatment for ureteral stone (≤10 mm). We collected patient demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory tests. Using non-contrast computed tomography (CT) reports, stone width, length, and depth (w, l, d, respectively) were used to estimate stone volumes using the ellipsoid formula: V=π*l*w*d*0.167. Using a backward conditional regression, two models were developed incorporating either estimated stone volume or maximal axial stone diameter. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed and the area under the curve (AUC) was computed and compared to the other model. Results: We included 450 patients; 243 patients (54%) had SSP and 207 patients (46%) failed SSP. The median calculated stone volume was significantly smaller among patients with SSP: 25 (14–60) mm3 vs. 113 (66–180) mm3 (p<0.001). After adjusting for covariates, predictors of retained stone included: neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥3.14 (odds ratio [OR] 6, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 3.49–10.33), leukocyte esterase (LE) >75 (OR 4.83, 95% CI 2.12–11.00), and proximal stone (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.16–3.83). For every 1 mm3 increase in stone volume, the risk of SSP failure increased by 2.5%. The model explained 89.4% (0.864–0.923) of the variability in the outcome. This model was superior to the model including maximal axial diameter (0.881, 0.847–0.909, p=0.04). Conclusions: We present a nomogram incorporating stone volume to better predict SSP. Stone volume estimated using an ellipsoid formula can predict SSP better than maximal axial diameter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207