MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137758974 · doi:10.1186/1477-7819-1-6

Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP): A Technical Update

2003· article· en· W2137758974 on OpenAlexaff
Ramsay L. Kuo, Ryan F. Paterson, Samuel Kim, Tibério M. Siqueira, Mostafa Elhilali, James E. Lingeman

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgical Oncology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnucleationMedicineProstateSurgeryProstatectomyHemostasisUrologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) combined with mechanical morcellation represents the latest refinement of holmium:YAG surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Utilizing this technique, even the largest of glands can be effectively treated with minimal morbidity. The learning curve remains an obstacle, preventing more widespread adoption of this procedure. This paper provides an outline of the HoLEP technique as is currently used at two centers in hopes of easing the initial learning curve. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Detailed descriptions of the major steps of the HoLEP procedure are provided with attention to critical steps such as identification of the surgical capsule, median and lateral lobe enucleation, and morcellation of enucleated tissue. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP is a promising alternative for the surgical treatment of BPH which allows complete removal of intact lobes of the prostate. Obstruction is relieved immediately with superior hemostasis, no risk of TUR syndrome, and a minimal hospital stay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations109
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Surgical OncologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207