MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400691090 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8807

Factors predicting stone-free rates after retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole kidney stones

2024· article· en· W4400691090 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ryan M. Boudreau, Moustafa Fathy, Amr Hodhod, Rabail Siddiqui, Husain Alaradi, Saud Alhelal, Loay Abbas, Amer Alaref, Ahmed S. Zakaria, Hazem Elmansy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsThunder Bay Regional Research InstituteNOSM UniversityThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney stonesUreteroscopySurgeryUnivariate analysisDemographicsUrologyMultivariate analysisUreterInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate the factors impacting stone clearance following retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole kidney stones and to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the infundibular pelvic angle (IPA) of the kidney's lower pole and stone fragment clearance. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) for lower pole renal calculi between December 2020 and July 2023 at our institution. Patient demographics and stone parameters were recorded, including stone size, number, volume, density, and IPA. Intraoperative data, including total operative time, lasing time, type of laser used, and stone composition, were collected and analyzed. All patients underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan at three months followup. We recorded the presence of residual stones and the percentage of stone volume reduction. Patients with a stone size ≤3 mm were deemed stone-free. All patients were discharged home on the same operative day. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were included in the study: 71 in the stone-free group (group 1) and 52 in the residual stones group (group 2). On univariate analysis, there were significant differences between the two groups in terms of stone size, IPA, and the type of ureteroscopy used. At three-month followup, 96% (24/25) of patients with an IPA <30° had residual stones compared to 28.6% (28/98) of patients with an IPA >30° (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the intraoperative or postoperative complications between the two groups. On multivariate analysis, IPA and stone size were the only predictive factors for the presence of residual stones. Twelve patients (23.1%) from group 2 required retreatment. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS is an effective treatment option for the management of lower pole kidney stones. IPA, in conjunction with stone size, appears to dictate the stone clearance rates of RIRS for lower pole stones.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments→French-language works237,207→