MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001303813 · doi:10.1089/end.2004.18.818

Review of Laser Fibers: A Practical Guide for Urologists

2004· review· en· W2001303813 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Nazif, Joel M.H. Teichman, Randolph D. Glickman, Ashley J. Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health Care
FundersU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsOptical fiberMedicineLithotripsyLaserLaser lithotripsyDeflection (physics)URETEROSCOPEIrradiationBend radiusBendingFiber laserOpticsSurgeryBiomedical engineeringComposite materialMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Holmium:YAG lithotripsy requires transmission of optical energy using laser fibers. Optical fibers may be subjected to severe angular deflection and bending during flexible nephroscopy or flexible ureteronephroscopy. Irradiation of a deflected fiber in a tight bending radius may produce fiber failure and consequent irradiation of the ureteroscope, with risk of instrument damage and patient injury. We review the physics and engineering aspects of optical fibers to explain why fibers fail.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.016

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations101
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207