Impact of body mass index on clinical outcomes associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the preferred treatment for patients with large renal calculi or stones that have not responded to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and complications of PCNL in patients of various body mass indices (BMI) to determine the safety of this procedure in patients with elevated BMI.Methods: A retrospective chart review of 114 patients who underwent PCNL between 2006 and 2009 was performed. Patients were separated into 4 groups with respect to their BMI: (1) ideal bodyweight (BMI <25 kg/m2), (2) overweight (BMI 25-29 kg/m2), (3) obese (BMI 30-39 kg/m2) and (4) morbidly obese (BMI ≥40 kg/m2). One-way ANOVA and univariate logistic regression analysis were used to assess the association between BMI (classified into 4 levels) and variables including age, sex, stone size, length of stay, incidence of complications and stone-free rates.Results: The distribution of the 114 patients in each BMI category was: ideal body weight 39 (34%), overweight 24 (21%), obese 41 (36%), morbidly obese 10 (9%). There was no difference in the composition of groups with respect to age, sex, pharmacologically treated comorbidities or stone size. Mean length of stay in days, intra- and postoperative complication rates were not statistically different. Stone-free rates showed no significant difference between groups: 90% ideal body weight; 87% overweight; 90% obese; 80% morbidly obese (p = 0.83).Interpretation: Outcomes of PCNL were statistically independent of BMI. PCNL is a safe and efficacious treatment of stone disease in patients of all sizes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".