Shockwave Lithotripsy of Upper Urinary Tract Calculi - Outcomes of a Multicentre International Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction\nShockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a surgical procedure used in urolithiasis treatment. Several factors can influence its results. This study aims to evaluate “real-world” success rates and identify predictors of treatment success in patients undergoing SWL.\nMethods\nAdult patients undergoing SWL for urolithiasis at three institutions in Canada and Oman were prospectively enrolled. Treatment success after a maximum of two SWL sessions was assessed by post-operative imaging. Logistic regression assessed for predictors of treatment success.\nResults\nBetween May 2021 and February 2022, 271 patients were prospectively enrolled. Overall success rate was 46.1% after one SWL session, and 58.3% after two sessions. In the univariable and multivariable analyses, smaller stone size and stone surface, and lower stone attenuation on Computerized Tomography were predictors of treatment success.\nConclusion\nAfter two SWL sessions, overall success was 58.3%. Factors related to the stone appear to be the most important in predicting treatment success after SWL.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".