MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1963679813 · doi:10.1121/1.3587693

Holmium: YAG lithotripsy varies with power settings.

2011· article· en· W1963679813 on OpenAlexaff
Joel M.H. Teichman, Jason Sea, Lee Jonat, Ben H. Chew, Jinze Qiu, Thomas E. Milner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithotripsyLaser lithotripsyHolmiumAblationLaserImpact craterMaterials scienceNuclear medicineChemistryMedicineSurgeryPhysicsOpticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The holmium:YAG laser fragments stones by photothermal mechanism. Increased pulse energy (PE) produces larger ablation craters, implying faster lithotripsy. However, increased PE increases retropulsion, implying slower lithotripsy. Optimal power settings were studied. Uniform stone phantoms were ablated in water (500 J total energy). Six power settings were tested: ranging from 0.2 to 2.0 at 10–40 Hz. Two conditions were tested: no stabilization vs stabilization devices placed behind the stone. Total fragmentation (TF) and fragment sizes were quantified. In the no stabilization cohorts, retropulsion was measured. Pressure transients were measured by needle hydrophone. Stone crater volumes were quantified by optical computed tomography. With or without stabilization, TF increased as PE increased, p<0.0001; and fragment size increased as PE increased, p<0.05. Without stabilization, retropulsion increased as PE increased, p<0.0001. TF was greater with vs without stabilization, p<0.01. Pressure transients were <30 bars even at 2.0 J. Crater volumes increased as PE increased, p<0.01 but remained symmetric. Increased PE produces more lithotripsy but also larger fragments. Even at high PE (2.0 J) Ho:YAG lithotripsy is photothermal. Low PE produces small fragments but less lithotripsy. Modest PE (0.2–0.5 J) at high-repetition rate produces more fragmentation, small fragments, and less retropulsion. [Work supported by Percsys and Boston Scientific.]

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicLaser Design and Applications→French-language works237,207→