Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39941670›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Kidney Stones as Minerals: How Methods from Geology Could Inform Urolithiasis Treatment.

Elena Popova, Sergey Tkachev, Artur Shapoval, Anastasia Karpenko, Yuliya Lee, Pavel Chislov, Boris Ershov, Danila Golub, Gevorg Galechyan, Daniil Bogoedov and 10 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Elena PopovaFederal Research and Clinical Center of Specialized Medical Care and Medical Technologies, Moscow 115682, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-0988-512X
Sergey TkachevInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-8436-7250
Artur ShapovalSchool of Minerals and Energy Resources Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Anastasia KarpenkoInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-2318-1743
Yuliya LeeInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Pavel ChislovInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.ORCID 0009-0004-9257-6142
Boris ErshovInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Danila GolubInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Gevorg GalechyanInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.ORCID 0009-0009-0326-8233
Daniil BogoedovGridPoint Dynamics LLC, Moscow 123060, Russia.
Anastasiya AkovantsevaN.N. Semenov Federal Research Center for Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 119334, Russia.
Elvira GafarovaInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Roman MusaelyanDokuchaev Soil Science Institute, Moscow 109017, Russia.
Maria SchekleinaDepartment of Petrology and Volcanology, Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Stuart ClarkSchool of Minerals and Energy Resources Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0495-670X
Stanislav AliInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Alim DymovInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Andrey VinarovInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-9510-9487
Petr GlybochkoInstitute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Peter TimashevInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia.

Funding

Russian Science Foundation 22-75-10100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the recent advances in minimally invasive surgery, kidney stones still pose a significant clinical challenge due to their high recurrence rate of 50% in 5-10 years after the first stone episode. Using the methods of geosciences and biology, the GeoBioMed approach treats kidney stones as biogenic minerals, offering a novel perspective on their formation and dissolution processes. In this review, we discuss kidney stones' structural and mechanical properties as emerging biomarkers of urolithiasis, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive stone analysis in developing personalized treatment strategies. By focusing on unexplored properties like crystalline architecture, porosity, permeability, cleavage, and fracture, alongside the conventionally used composition and morphology, we show how these stone characteristics influence the treatment efficacy and the disease recurrence. This review also highlights the potential of advanced imaging techniques to uncover novel biomarkers, contributing to a deeper understanding of stone pathogenesis. We discuss how the interdisciplinary collaboration within the GeoBioMed approach aims to enhance the diagnostic accuracy, improve the treatment outcomes, and reduce the recurrence of urolithiasis.

Indexed as

basic endourological researchkidney stoneslaser lithotripsystone analysisstone recurrence preventionurolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID39941670
PMCPMC11818645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.