MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

MP45-06 POPULATION-BASED DIETARY RISKS FOR KIDNEY STONES: IMPLICATIONS FOR DIETARY COUNSELING AND PREVENTION

2024· article· en· W4394802978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna J. Black, Ghizlane Moussaoui, Connor M. Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney stonesPopulationContext (archaeology)Environmental healthKidney diseaseEpidemiologyIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Epidemiology & Evaluation II (MP45)1 May 2024MP45-06 POPULATION-BASED DIETARY RISKS FOR KIDNEY STONES: IMPLICATIONS FOR DIETARY COUNSELING AND PREVENTION Anna J. Black, Ghizlane Moussaoui, and Connor M. Forbes Anna J. BlackAnna J. Black , Ghizlane MoussaouiGhizlane Moussaoui , and Connor M. ForbesConnor M. Forbes View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008764.86460.8e.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Dietary risk factors for kidney stone formation have been identified, and guidelines for preventing kidney stone recurrences have been developed. In the context of the increasing incidence of kidney stones, we aim to assess the percentage of the population who are eating an at-risk diet for kidney stones and to understand the baseline diet for future counseling. METHODS: The 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey, a national cross-sectional instrument administered by Statistics Canada and Health Canada, was queried. Intake of relevant nutrients was compared to dietary risk factors for kidney stone formation. Factors associated with nutrient intake were analyzed in a multivariable regression. RESULTS: Data for 14 275 participants was included, of whom only 34% consumed>2 L of fluid per day and only 9.4% consumed 1000-1200 mg of dietary calcium. 53.9% consumed too much sodium but 61% of the population had the recommended protein intake. Less than 1% of the population had no dietary risk factors for developing kidney stones, while 92.2% have two or more risk factors. Fluid, sodium, calcium, and protein intake increased significantly with education level, income, and if employed (p<0.01). Participants with food insecurity were more likely to have low dietary protein and calcium but had no significant differences in sodium or fluid intake.Hypertension was associated with lower intake of fluid, sodium, calcium, and protein, while an elevated BMI was associated with increased intake of each of these (p<0.05 for all). Osteoporosis but not dairy-free diets were associated with low calcium.Supplements were common, with 62.3% of the population taking a supplement containing vitamin C, 51.2% vitamin B6, 47.2% calcium, and 38% magnesium. CONCLUSIONS: While only a subset of the population will develop stones, this study shows that 92.2% of the population is eating a diet that elevated the risk of stone disease. As the incidence of kidney stones increases, population-based dietary interventions should be considered. Furthermore, clinicians may use these data to understand the average diet as a starting point for questioning and counseling patients. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e744 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Anna J. Black More articles by this author Ghizlane Moussaoui More articles by this author Connor M. Forbes More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.018

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Urology→Same topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments→French-language works237,207→