MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118667518 · doi:10.1089/end.2010.0708

The Canadian StoneBreaker Trial: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial Comparing the LMA StoneBreaker™ and the Swiss LithoClast <sup>®</sup> During Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy

2011· article· en· W2118667518 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ben H. Chew, Olga Arsovska, Dirk Lange, Jamie E. Wright, Darren Beiko, Daniela Ghiculete, John R. D'A. Honey, Kenneth T. Pace, Ryan F. Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLithotripsyPercutaneousSurgeryRandomized controlled trialNephrostomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) is the treatment of choice for patients with large renal stones. The StoneBreaker™ (SB) is a novel handheld pneumatic lithotriptor, powered by a compressed carbon dioxide cartridge. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency of the SB to a standard pneumatic lithotriptor, the Swiss LithoClast(®) (LC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2009, patients undergoing PCNL were randomized to either the SB or the Swiss LC. Primary outcomes included time to fragment the stone, retrieve the fragments, and remove debris using ultrasonic lithotripsy. Secondary end points were stone-free rate, lithotriptor setup time, ease of use, operator fatigue, endoscopic visualization, damage to mucosa, and device-related complications. RESULTS: Of the initial 115 patients recruited, 77 were enrolled and 38 were excluded. The SB had significantly faster stone fragmentation time, total lithotripsy time, and setup time than the Swiss LC (P ≤ 0.05). A significant difference was also noted in the ease of use and operator fatigue in favor of the SB. There were no device-related complications. CONCLUSION: The SB pneumatic lithotriptor is easier to set up and use, and it provides faster stone fragmentation than the Swiss LC.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207