MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282961543 · doi:10.1097/mou.0000000000000994

Prevalence and trends of urolithiasis among adults

2022· review· en· W4282961543 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRace (biology)EpidemiologyDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to review and synthesize the current literature on the epidemiology of urolithiasis. RECENT FINDINGS: The global patterns of urolithiasis are changing, as the prevalence of urolithiasis appears to be increasing across the world. Geographical variation in the prevalence of urolithiasis is noted across countries and within each country. Although urolithiasis is more common among men and white race, recent data suggests a more prominent rise in the prevalence among women and African Americans. Yet, no conclusive explanations for these phenomena are reported so far. SUMMARY: Urolithiasis is a highly prevalent condition with an increasing prevalence among women as compared with men closing the gender gap in urolithiasis. Further studies are needed to identify the potential causes for this observation.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.309 · 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