MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004521372 · doi:10.1089/end.2013.0003

<i>In Vitro</i> and <i>In Vivo</i> Comparison of Optics and Performance of a Distal Sensor Ureteroscope Versus a Standard Fiberoptic Ureteroscope

2013· article· en· W2004521372 on OpenAlexaff
Achim Lusch, Corollos S. Abdelshehid, Guy Hidas, Kathryn Osann, Zhamshid Okhunov, Elspeth M. McDougall, Jaime Landman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsURETEROSCOPEMedicineDeflection (physics)UreteroscopyBiomedical engineeringSurgeryNuclear medicineOpticsUreter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent advances in distal sensor technologies have made distal sensor ureteroscopes both commercially and technically feasible. We evaluated performance characteristics and optics of a new generation distal sensor Flex-X(C) (X(C)) and a standard flexible fiberoptic ureteroscope Flex-X(2) (X(2)), both from Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ureteroscopes were compared for active deflection, irrigation flow, and optical characteristics. Each ureteroscope was evaluated with an empty working channel and with various accessories. Optical characteristics (resolution, grayscale imaging, and color representation) were measured using United States Air Force test targets. We digitally recorded a renal porcine ureteroscopy and laser ablation of a stone with the X(2) and with the X(C). Edited footage of the recorded procedure was shown to different expert surgeons (n=8) on a high-definition monitor for evaluation by questionnaire for image quality and performance. RESULTS: The X(C) had a higher resolution than the X(2) at 20 and 10 mm 3.17 lines/mm vs 1.41 lines/mm, 10.1 vs 3.56, respectively (P=0.003, P=0.002). Color representation was better in the X(C). There was no difference in contrast quality between the two ureteroscopes. For each individual ureteroscope, the upward deflection was greater than the downward deflection both with and without accessories. When compared with the X(2), the X(C) manifested superior deflection and flow (P<0.0005, P<0.05) with and without accessory present in the working channel. Observers deemed the distal sensor ureteroscope superior in visualization in clear and bloody fields, as well as for illumination (P=0.0005, P=0.002, P=0.0125). CONCLUSIONS: In this in vitro and porcine evaluation, the distal sensor ureteroscope provided significantly improved resolution, color representation, and visualization in the upper urinary tract compared with a standard fiberoptic ureteroscope. The overall deflection was also better in the X(C), and deflection as well as flow rate was less impaired by the various accessories.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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