MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415450161 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvaf149.508

MON-766 Risk Factors for Renal Stone Development in Adults with Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· article· en· W4415450161 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Jay, Sorina Andrei, Peter Hoang, Ali Sahraneshin Samani, Tharani Anpalagan, Hussein Samhat, David‐Dan Nguyen, Roland M. Jones, Rui Fu, Noémie Villemure‐Poliquin, Geneviève Gore, Lorraine L. Lipscombe, Antoine Eskander

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdds ratioPrimary hyperparathyroidismSystematic reviewRisk factorComplicationRisk assessmentKidney stones

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Disclosure: M. Jay: None. S. Andrei: None. P. Hoang: None. A. Samani: None. T. Anpalagan: None. H. Samhat: None. D. Nguyen: None. R. Jones: None. R. Fu: None. N. Villemure-Poliquin: None. G. Gore: None. L.L. Lipscombe: None. A. Eskander: None. Background: Renal stones (RS) are a common complication of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT), posing significant clinical and economic burdens. Identifying RS risk factors is crucial for targeted prevention, monitoring, and prioritizing parathyroidectomy. However, no systematic review has evaluated RS risk factors in PHPT. Objective: We evaluated prespecified risk factors (age, sex, serum calcium, parathyroid hormone [PTH], vitamin D, and urine calcium) for incident and recurrent RS in adults with PHPT. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL through September 2024. Two reviewers independently selected cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies involving adults (≥18 years) with PHPT, excluding clinical trials, abstracts, and case reports. We extracted data on participants, risk factors and RS outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated adjusted (aOR) and crude (cOR) odds ratios. We used the Quality in Prognostic Studies and GRADE frameworks to assess risk of bias and evidence certainty, respectively. Sensitivity analyses excluded cross-sectional and high-risk-of-bias studies. Subgroup analyses explored heterogeneity by design, risk of bias, and osteoporosis. Meta-regression assessed serum calcium’s effect on other risk factors. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024608180). Results: Of 5,925 records, 53 studies (N=40,310; 8,311 RS cases) were included; 36 were cross-sectional. Median age was 58.4 years (IQR 55.7-61.9), and 77.9% were female (IQR 72.6-81.6). High-certainty evidence indicated male sex (aOR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.67-2.56; I² = 0%, N = 5 studies, 3,793 patients) and elevated urine calcium (aOR 2.38; 95% CI, 1.65-3.46; I² = 37.9%, N = 6 studies, 3,345 patients) were associated with increased RS risk. Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that younger age was associated with increased recurrent RS (uOR 12.50; 95% CI, 4.55-33.33; I² = 89.3%, N = 4 studies, 2,910 patients). Associations with serum calcium (aOR 1.42; 95% CI, 0.66-3.05; I² = 67.3%, N = 4 studies, 8,189 patients), PTH (aOR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.20; I² = 0%, N = 3 studies, 1,883 patients), and vitamin D (cOR 1.14; 95% CI, 0.71-1.81; I² = 61.8%, N = 12 studies, 2,274 patients) were informed by low- or very low-certainty evidence. Findings were consistent across sensitivity analyses. No subgroup differences emerged, and meta-regression found no modifying effect of serum calcium. Discussion: Our findings establish a distinct RS risk profile in PHPT compared with the general RS population. Male sex and elevated urinary calcium are key RS risk factors in PHPT, while younger age is pertinent to recurrence. These results support vigilant RS surveillance and timely parathyroidectomy in high-risk patients. Further research should refine RS risk factors, differentiate incident from recurrent RS, and assess the impact of early parathyroidectomy on RS morbidity and costs. Presentation: Monday, July 14, 2025

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicParathyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207