Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) and ambulatory tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in the treatment of 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones.Methods: Patients who underwent F-URS and mini-PCNL for the treatment of 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones between October 2020 and July 2022 were evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.Sixty-four participants have been included in the study thus far.All participants underwent a CT renal colic scan preoperatively, on postoperative day one (POD 1), and at three months followup.Outcome measures, including stone characteristics, operative time, hospital stay, and stone-free rate (SFR), in addition to complication rates, were collected and compared.All patients were discharged home on the same operative day.Results: There were no significant differences in preoperative baseline data between the two surgical groups (Table 1).A significantly longer median operative time was reported in the mini-PCNL group (p=0.04).The median hospitalization times were five hours and four hours in the mini-PCNL and F-URS groups, respectively (p=0.14).The SFR on POD 1 was 23.5% in the F-URS group and 80% in the mini-PCNL group (p<0.001).At three months followup, the SFR was 67.6% in the F-URS group and 90% in the mini-PCNL group (p=0.03)(Table 2).There was no significant difference in hemoglobin drop or postoperative complications between the two groups.One patient in the F-URS group required retreatment.Conclusions: Ambulatory mini-PCNL and F-URS are effective treatment options for 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones.Both techniques have comparable hospital stay and complication rates, with a significantly better SFR with mini-PCNL.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.025 |
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".