How to Prevent Kidney Stones: What Is Online Video Content Imparting to Our Patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundUreteric calculi are amongst the most painful conditions encountered in medicine, with some patients describing their experience as worse than childbirth [1].Because of this threat of pain, patients will seek methods to prevent nephrolithiasis formation and will often refer to unverified sources for this information.As clinicians, we must provide evidence-based patient education and recognise that patients may have misinformed preconceptions when seeking medical treatment.In recent years, particularly due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the internet has become a readily accessible source of health information [2].Following Google, YouTube is the second-most visited website worldwide, with the largest collection of free-to-access video content and an ever-growing influence with health information distribution [3].This is of concern, as unregulated videos uploaded to this platform may provide misleading information and perpetuate a misunderstanding of the appropriate treatment for potentially life-threatening health conditions. AimsThe aim of this study was to assess the accuracy, understandability and actionability of online video content available to patients regarding how to prevent kidney stones.How to Prevent Kidney Stones: What Is Online Video Content Imparting to Our Patients?
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".