MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967693462 · doi:10.1155/2012/716786

Percutaneous Holmium Laser Fulguration of Calyceal Diverticula

2012· article· en· W1967693462 on OpenAlexafffund
Amjad Alwaal, Raed A. Azhar, Sero Andonian

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Urology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFondation de l'Hôpital Général de Montréal
KeywordsFulgurationMedicinePercutaneousDiverticulum (mollusc)SurgeryAsymptomaticHolmiumRadiologyLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Calyceal diverticular stones are uncommon findings that represent a challenge in their treatment, due to the technical difficulty in accessing the diverticulum, and the high risk of their recurrence. Current percutaneous technique for calyceal diverticular stones involves establishing a renal access, clearing the stone, and fulguration of the diverticular lining with a roller-ball cautery electrode using hypotonic irrigation solution such as sterile water or glycine solution which may be associated with the absorption of hypotonic fluids with its inherent electrolyte disturbances. Case Report. In this paper, we present for the first time percutaneous holmium laser fulguration of calyceal diverticula in 2 patients using normal saline. Their immediate postoperative sodium was unchanged and their follow-up imaging showed absence of stones. Both patients remain asymptomatic at 30 months post-operatively. Conclusion. This demonstrates that holmium laser is a safe alternative method to fulgurate the calyceal diverticulum after clearing the stone percutaneously.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in UrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207