MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019358105 · doi:10.1117/1.3368998

Femtosecond laser lithotripsy: feasibility and ablation mechanism

2010· article· en· W2019358105 on OpenAlexaff
Joel M.H. Teichman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAblationMaterials scienceFemtosecondLithotripsyLaserLaser ablationOpticsShock waveMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Light emitted from a femtosecond laser is capable of plasma-induced ablation of various materials. We tested the feasibility of utilizing femtosecond-pulsed laser radiation (lambda=800 nm, 140 fs, 0.9 mJ/pulse) for ablation of urinary calculi. Ablation craters were observed in human calculi of greater than 90% calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), cystine (CYST), or magnesium ammonium phosphate hexahydrate (MAPH). Largest crater volumes were achieved on CYST stones, among the most difficult stones to fragment using Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) lithotripsy. Diameter of debris was characterized using optical microscopy and found to be less than 20 microm, substantially smaller than that produced by long-pulsed Ho:YAG ablation. Stone retropulsion, monitored by a high-speed camera system with a spatial resolution of 15 microm, was negligible for stones with mass as small as 0.06 g. Peak shock wave pressures were less than 2 bars, measured by a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) needle hydrophone. Ablation dynamics were visualized and characterized with pump-probe imaging and fast flash photography and correlated to shock wave pressures. Because femtosecond-pulsed laser ablates urinary calculi of soft and hard compositions, with micron-sized debris, negligible stone retropulsion, and small shock wave pressures, we conclude that the approach is a promising candidate technique for lithotripsy.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasmaFrench-language works237,207