Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patient engagement is essential in nephrolithiasis to navigate complex choices among interventions and preventative measures.Urologists often provide patients with patient information materials (PIMs) published by major urological organizations such as the CUA, AUA, and EAU.The readability of CUA PIMs has been previously assessed for general urological conditions; however, a comparative assessment of major urology association PIMs for different facets of kidney stone disease is not yet available.We undertook this comparative readability analysis to predict comprehension based on reading ability and to provide a resource for clinicians and patients.Methods: We located CUA, AUA, and EAU PIMs on four topics related to nephrolithiasis; general information, dietary information, and surgical and medical management.We then performed a readability analysis of each PIM using three major scoring systems: SMOG, Gunning Fog, and FKGL.Average readability levels for each topic PIM were then calculated for each organization and compared.Results: Readability for CUA PIMs ranged 9.5-11.6(grade 10-12).This was similar to EAU PIMs at 9.2-11.2(grade 9-11).AUA resources were more easily readable, with averages scores from 7.5-10.1,corresponding to grade 8-10.For the topic 'medical management' the AUA PIM did have a higher readability score at 10.1 compared to both CUA (9.5) and EAU (9.2) (Table 1).CUA had resources only in English and French, while EAU had resources in 20 different languages, including; Dutch, Greek, Portuguese, and Italian.AUA resources had nine different languages, including; Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, Punjabi, and Vietnamese (only English was scored in our analysis).Conclusions: Both CUA and EAU kidney stone PIMs do not meet the standard of 6-8th grade reading level for patients recommended by NIH and AMA.AUA resources only meet this recommendation for some of their PIMs.Without additional guidance, patients may either have an incomplete understanding of resources or may seek out additional unsourced resources from the internet.We invite physicians to assess readability and availability of PIMs from our analysis and curate the resources they provide for patients accordingly.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.431 | 0.186 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".