MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140364161 · doi:10.1089/end.2010.0242

Third Prize: The Impact of Fluid Environment Manipulation on Shockwave Lithotripsy Artificial Calculi Fragmentation Rates

2011· article· en· W2140364161 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos E. Méndez-Probst, Alfonso Fernadez, Petar Erdeljan, Maaike Vanjecek, Peter A. Cadieux, Hassan Razvi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLithotripsyFragmentation (computing)UrineExtracorporeal shockwave lithotripsyUrologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies have suggested that shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) stone fragmentation rates can be affected by characteristics of the fluid media surrounding the stone, although evidence to implicate the impact of urine specific gravity (SG) is limited and inconclusive. Our aim is to further explore the impact fluid media and SGs have on stone fragmentation using a variable focus lithotripter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artificial stones were presoaked for 24 hours in urine and then shocked in various fluid media including artificial urine (SG 1.010 control, 1.020, and 1.07), human pooled urine (HPU), degassed HPU, Pentastarch, 100% and 30% contrast, degassed 30% contrast, 100% ethanol, deionized water (dH(2)O), degassed dH(2)O, 5% glucose, Ringer lactate, 0.9% saline, glycerol, whole blood, and lubricating gel. After soaking, SWL using the Modulith SLX-F2 electromagnetic lithotripter was performed. Fragments were dried and sieved using a 4-mm diameter opening grid. Fragments >4 mm were weighed and fragmentation coefficients (FCs) calculated (pre-SWL weight - post-SWL weight)/(pre-SWL weight) × 100. Fifteen stones were shocked for each fluid group. RESULTS: Fluid type, viscosity, and degassing all significantly impacted stone fragmentation. While the solutions' SG, per se, did not appear to affect stone fragmentation, the use of degassed 30% contrast significantly improved stone destruction over the SG 1.010 artificial urine control (95.3% vs 71.4, P < 0.01). Furthermore, degassing improved comminution rates by increasing the number of completely fragmented stones (FC = 100%). Using degassed 30% contrast, 12/15 stones were completely fragmented, compared with only 2/15 in the control group (P = 0.007). Among the whole blood, glycerol, and lubricating gel groups, only 1/15, 0/15, and 1/15 stones reached 100% FC respectively in the narrow focus, possibly because of the detrimental impact of increased viscosity. CONCLUSIONS: Different fluid media can significantly affect FC in vitro. Among the various fluids tested, degassed 30% contrast significantly increased the FC and total number of completely fragmented stones.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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