{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03571428571428571, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009183673469387756, 'mean_word_length': 5.288461538461538, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
URINARY STONE RISK PROFILE IN STONE FORMER PATIENT

Objective: We were comparing the urinary stone risk profiles in stone former subjects group with normal population (non stone-former) group. Material & method: In this study, each group consist of 10 subjects. Urine samples used was a 24-hour-urine. All subjects in this study were previously informed and voluntarily participating. Inclusion criteria in this study were adult, stone free, residing in Jakarta. Measurement was performed in Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Faculty of Medicine Indonesia University. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20 (Chicago, USA) with Student’s t-test or Mann-Whitney (p 0.05) in sodium, creatinine, calcium, magnesium, oxalate, and citrate levels. Conclusion: There were no significant differences in urinary stone promoting and inhibiting factors between two groups. Bigger number of sample size with better sampling method must be conducted for future studies.