Theoretical modelling, experimental studies and clinical simulations of urethral cooling catheters for use during prostate thermal therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urethral cooling catheters are used to prevent thermal damage to the urethra during thermal therapy of the prostate. Quantification of a catheter's heat transfer characteristics is necessary for prediction of the catheter's influence on the temperature and thermal dose distribution in periurethral tissue. Two cooling catheters with different designs were examined: the Dornier Urowave catheter and a prototype device from BSD Medical Corp. A convection coefficient, h. was used to characterize the cooling ability of each catheter. The value of the convection coefficient (h = 330 W m(-2) C(-1) for the Dornier catheter. h = 160 W m(-2) C(-1) for the BSD device) was obtained by comparing temperatures measured in a tissue-equivalent phantom material to temperatures predicted by a finite element method simulation of the phantom experiments. The coefficient was found to be insensitive to the rate of coolant flow inside the catheter between 40 and 120 ml min(-1). The convection coefficient method for modelling urethral catheters was incorporated into simulations of microwave heating of the prostate. Results from these simulations indicate that the Dornier device is significantly more effective than the BSD catheter at cooling the tissue surrounding the urethra.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".