MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391037579 · doi:10.1097/ju9.0000000000000107

Prevalence, Incidence, and Determinants of Kidney Stones in a Nationally Representative Sample of US Adults

2024· article· en· W4391037579 on OpenAlexaff
Ben H. Chew, Larry E. Miller, Brian H. Eisner, Samir Bhattacharyya, Naeem Bhojani

Bibliographic record

VenueJU Open Plus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney stonesIncidence (geometry)Kidney diseaseGallstonesConfidence intervalBody mass indexInternal medicineNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyLogistic regressionKidney stone diseaseDemographyEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To determine the prevalence, incidence, and determinants of kidney stones among adults in the United States. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional observational study evaluated the lifetime prevalence of kidney stones and the 12-month incidence of kidney stone passage from the 2017 to 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Survey statistical methods were used to estimate kidney stone prevalence and incidence and the association of patient characteristics with these outcomes using logistic regression. Results: The analysis included 9208 participants with prevalence data and 9193 with incidence data. The mean age of the sample was 51 ± 17 years, 49% were male, and the mean body mass index was 30 ± 8 kg/m 2 . The prevalence of kidney stones was 9.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 8.7%-11.3%), and the incidence of stone passage was 1.8% (95% CI: 1.4%-2.4%). The most important covariates predicting kidney stone prevalence were a history of gallstones (OR = 2.89: 95% CI: 2.16-3.89, P < .001), hypertension (OR = 1.73: 95% CI: 1.06-2.83, P = .03), and chronic kidney disease (OR = 1.99: 95% CI: 1.01-3.90, P = .046). The same variables were most important in predicting the incidence of kidney stone passage: history of gallstones (OR = 2.66: 95% CI: 1.47-4.81, P = .002), chronic kidney disease (OR = 3.34: 95% CI: 1.01-11.01, P = .048), and hypertension (OR = 2.24: 95% CI: 1.17-4.27, P = .02). Conclusions: The self-reported prevalence and incidence of kidney stones in the US adult population between 2017 and 2020 were 9.9% and 1.8%, respectively. History of gallstones, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were important predictors of both outcomes. Individuals with these risk factors may require more frequent monitoring or targeted preventative lifestyle interventions.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJU Open PlusSame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207