MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Minimizing symptoms in patients with ureteric stents

2006· review· en· W2078918262 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 · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current approaches for minimizing symptoms in patients with ureteric stents were reviewed utilizing a literature search on Pubmed using the keywords stent, symptom, and ureter. RECENT FINDINGS: Ureteral stents are widely used in urological procedures for maintaining upper urinary tract drainage to relieve obstruction, pain, or infection. Indwelling stents, however, are associated with significant morbidity such as infection, encrustation, hematuria, and bothersome symptoms. Minimizing these issues has become paramount in the design of new ureteral stents. This article will review current and novel ways to minimize stent-related morbidity. SUMMARY: Currently, there is no ideal stent that relieves obstruction, is resistant to infection and encrustation, and is comfortable for patients. Advances in biomaterials and design will result in a more biocompatible stent that also has patient comfort in mind.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.306 · 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