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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ureteral stents are a mainstay of today's urological armamentarium. This review critically evaluates the recent literature and provides a concise summary of the use of stents in urology today. While stents are used in many reconstructive urologic procedures, this review focuses on the use of stents in urolithiasis as it pertains to ureteroscopy, shockwave lithotripsy, and ureteropelvic junction obstruction. RECENT FINDINGS: Ureteral stents are associated with irritative symptoms, hematuria, infection, and encrustation. A new validated quality of life and impact questionnaire has been developed and has shown that 76% of patients suffer at least some type of morbidity related to the stent. Many studies in the recent literature have re-examined our use of stents today. For example, concepts regarding stenting following ureteroscopy, before shockwave lithotripsy, and following endopyelotomy have undergone an evolution based on the results of randomized, prospective studies. SUMMARY: The ureteral stent is an invaluable urological tool and its indications are evolving as are new stent technologies to improve patient care and comfort.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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