MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385680794 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8333

Current advances in pain regimens for percutaneous nephrolithotomy

2023· review· en· W4385680794 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tomas Paneque, John Richey, Ahmad Abdelrazek, Joseph Fitz-Gerald, Seth Swinney, Zachary M. Connelly, Nazih Khater

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous nephrolithotomyNephrostomyPostoperative painSurgeryChronic painPercutaneousGeneral surgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) causes pain and discomfort after surgery. The primary causes of immediate postoperative pain after PCNL are visceral pain from the ureters and kidneys, and body surface discomfort from incisions. Acute, untreated pain has the potential to develop into chronic pain, which remains a considerable burden for the rehabilitation of patients. The goal of this review was to describe the current options for treating pain post-PCNL. METHODS: We conducted a literature review of all published manuscripts on pain protocols for patients undergoing PCNL and related topics; 50 published manuscripts were identified and reviewed. RESULTS: PCNL morbidity must be reduced by an appropriate management of postoperative pain. Opioids, multimodal therapy, tubeless PCNL, reduced size of nephrostomy tube, and regional anesthesia are currently available for reducing postoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing successful treatment strategies for postoperative pain after PCNL is key in reducing the morbidity and mortality of 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207