MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Encrustation of biomaterials in the urinary tract

2000· review· en· W2071010996 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiomaterialUrinary systemSelf-healing hydrogelsBiocompatible materialBiocompatibilityBiofilmBiomedical engineeringChemical engineeringInternal medicineBacteriaEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present review focuses on technological advances and relevant research related to encrustation of biomaterials in the urinary tract. The importance of physical and chemical biomaterial type, biocompatibility, material coatings such as hydrogels, and infection related to alloplastic materials used in urological practice are discussed. Recent in-vitro and in-vivo research has focused on materials that will reduce encrustation and bacterial biofilm formation, complications that limit the long-term use of urinary materials. Coordinating scientific resources in a multidisciplinary manner for a better understanding of factors that are involved in encrustation and biofilm formation will offer the potential to modify or resolve the problem of encrustation of foreign materials in the urinary tract.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.298 · 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