Classification and standardized reporting of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) Consensus Statements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to reach a consensus in the classification and standardized reporting for the different types of PCNLs.METHODS: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology was used to reach a consensus. Thirty-two statements were formulated reviewing the literature on guidelines and consensus on PCNLs, and included procedure specific details, outcome measurements and a classification for PCNLs. Experts were invited to two rounds of input, the first enabled independent modifications of the proposed statements and provided the option to add statements. The second round facilitated scoring of all statements. Each statement was discussed in the third round to decide which statements to include. Any suggestion or disagreement was debated and discussed to reach a consensual agreement.RESULTS: Twenty-five recommendations were identified to provide standardized reporting of procedure and outcomes. Consensual scoring above 80% were strongly agreed upon by the panel. The top treatment related outcomes were size of sheath used (99.1%) and position for PCNL (93.5%). The highest ranked Outcome Measures included definition of postoperative hospital length of stay (94.4%) and estimated blood loss (93.5%).CONCLUSIONS: The consensus statements will be useful to clarify operative technique, in the design of clinical trials and standardized reporting, and presentation of results to compare outcomes of different types of PCNLs.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.428 | 0.491 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".