Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ureteral stents are widely used in patients with urologic disorders. This review critically evaluates the recent literature, providing an update on advances in the development and design of stents. METHODS: A thorough MEDLINE and PubMed literature search on ureteral stents was performed, and all pertinent articles were reviewed in detail. This review was formulated on the basis of these articles, encompassing both basic science and clinical aspects of advances in ureteral stent design. RESULTS: The advances in development and design have been directed primarily toward decreasing stent-related morbidity such as discomfort, bladder irritability, infection, encrustation, and the need for an additional cystoscopic procedure to remove the stent. In recent years, there have been many significant advances in the design of ureteral stents, including tapered distal ends, and construction, such as magnetic, biodegradable, and tissue-engineered materials. CONCLUSIONS: There are many different bulk materials and coatings available for the manufacturing of ureteral stents, many of which are new. However, the ideal biomaterial has yet to be discovered. With ongoing research in this area, further advances in ureteral stent design will continue to improve outcomes for patients who require stents. Future advances are likely to include drug-coated stents, drug-eluting stents, and localized stenting techniques such as endoluminal gel paving.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it