Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: A randomized, double-blinded trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rate of shock wave administration is a factor in the per-shock efficiency of SWL. Decreasing shock wave frequency from 120 shocks per minute (s/m) may improve stone fragmentation. This study is the first to test this hypothesis in vivo. Patients with previously untreated radio-opaque kidney stones were randomized to SWL at 60 or 120 s/m and followed at 2 weeks and 3 months. Primary outcome was success rate, defined as stone-free or asymptomatic fragments 5 mm in size 3 months post-treatment. 111 patients were randomized to 60 s/m and 109 to 120 s/m. The groups were comparable on age, gender, BMI, stent status, and initial stone area. Success rate was higher for 60 s/m (75% versus 61%, p=0.027). Patients with stone area 100 mm2 experienced the greatest benefit: success rates were 71% for 60 s/m versus 32% (p=0.002), and stone-free rates were 60% versus 28% (p=0.015). Repeat SWL treatment was required in 32% treated at 120 s/m versus 18% (p=0.018). Fewer shocks were required (2423 versus 2906, p=0.001), but treatment time was longer (40.6 versus 24.2 minutes, p=0.001). SWL treatment at 60 s/m yields better outcomes than 120 s/m, particularly for stones 100 mm2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".