MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1843507383 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.2626

A guidewire introducer as a ureteral foreign body: A case report

2015· article· en· W1843507383 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tarık Emre Şener, Jonathan Cloutier, Marie Audouin, Luca Villa, Olivier Traxer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUreteral procedures and complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUreteroscopyForeign bodySurgeryUreterAnastomosisStenosisNephrostomyRadiologyPercutaneous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 63-year-old male, previously treated for a ureteral tumour by a right-sided segmental ureterectomy and end-to-end anastomosis of ureteral segments, was referred to our clinic for endoscopic follow-up. During his follow-up, he was diagnosed with partial right-sided ureteral stricture which eventually progressed to complete obstruction. During the ureteroscopy, as the stenotic segment did not allow passage of an hydrophilic guidewire, an antegrade-retrograde approach was decided. On the antegrade endoscopic view, a near-complete stenosis was diagnosed and a nephrostomy catheter (12 Fr) was placed. A second intervention was planned and from the nephrostomy tract, the ureteroscope was placed into the right pyelocaliceal system. The diagnostic ureteroscopy revealed a foreign object proximal to the stenotic area. Right-sided segmental ureterectomy of the stenotic segment with ureteroneocystostomy and removal of the foreign object was performed. This is the only case in literature to reveal a guidewire introducer as a ureteral foreign body. This case also highlights the importance of the fragility of the ureter, the importance of the equipment, of always being watchful during a surgery, and the importance of checking the integrity of the equipment at the end of each procedure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0130.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUreteral procedures and complicationsFrench-language works237,207