First Step to Equity and Organization in Waiting Lines for Stone Surgery. Translation of Prioritization Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The use of patient prioritization tools is one of several methods to enhance the management of waiting times for elective surgeries. Developing these tools specifically for urinary stones in the Brazilian context may enhance queue management and increase patient satisfaction. This study aims to adapt two previously published scores, the WCWL (Western Canada Waiting List - general criteria) and the SCQ-score (specific to urinary stone criteria), into Brazilian Portuguese. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study adhered to established protocols for the cross-cultural adaptation and translation of health-related questionnaires. The process for translating both original scores involved four steps: initial translation, back-translation, committee review, and pre-testing. The translations were conducted by professionals proficient in the relevant languages. The pre-test phase engaged eight endourologists who applied the translated versions of the scores to twelve hypothetical patient cases. RESULTS: Our study successfully produced Brazilian Portuguese versions of the SCQ and WCWL scores. During the pre-testing, these scores were found to be quick to perform (with an average completion time of 1 minute and 35 seconds) and were deemed easy to understand and use by the endourologists. However, there was a concern regarding the practical utility and interpretability of the WCWL score due to its more generalized criteria. CONCLUSION: We successfully developed the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Western Canada Waiting List and SCQ-score. This development will allow further studies to evaluate the impact of their use within the Brazilian healthcare environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".