The Historical Aspects of Urolithiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of urinary stone disease (USD) depends on geographic, climatic, ethnic, dietary, and genetic factors. USD of the upper urinary tract occurs 2–3 times more often in men than in women. The risk of stone formation during the human life is from 5% to 10 %, and the prevalence of USD in different regions varies from 1% to 20%. In the countries with a high life standard (for example, Sweden, Canada, the USA), the prevalence of this disease is very high and is more than 10 %. Unfortunately, in some regions there is the increased indices more than 37 % over the past 20 years. In Ukraine, USD ranks the second place among all urological diseases, more than 52000 patients are registered annually for the first time, and the frequency of occurrence varies from 30% to 45% of all urological pathologies. Mostly young people are affected, the disease progresses with symptoms of acute and chronic pyelonephritis and frequent recurrence of USD (30–80%). This course of USD leads to the development of kidney failure, disability and mortality of patients. The formation of calculi in the kidneys is a complex and polyetiological process that includes endogenous (age, sex and heredity) and exogenous factors (geographical conditions, climate, nutrition). USD has been well known for centuries. It has been proven that humanity has been suffering from this disease for over 7000 years. This is clearly confirmed by various archaeological finds, as well as writings about painful stones and therapeutic procedures that were carried out to remove them. Taking into account the importance and spread of USD, the article presents an overview of the historical development of diagnosis and treatment of this pathology in different regions of the world, an analysis of diagnostic and treatment methods, starting from early antiquity and up to the most modern approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".