Ureteral stent technology: Drug-eluting stents and stent coatings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ureteral stents are commonly used following urological procedures to maintain ureteral patency. However, alongside the benefits of the device, indwelling stents frequently cause significant patient discomfort (pain, urgency, frequency) and can become encrusted and infected. The importance of these sequelae is that they are not only bothersome to the patient but can lead to significant morbidity, urinary retention, ureteral damage, recurrent infections, pyelonephritis and sepsis. When these problems occur, stent removal or replacement alongside antibiotic, analgesic and/or other symptom-modifying therapies are essential to successfully treat the patient. In an attempt to prevent such morbidity, numerous approaches have been investigated over the past several decades to modify the stent itself, thereby affecting changes locally within the urinary tract without significant systemic therapy. These strategies include changes to device design, polymeric composition, drug-elution and surface coatings. Of these, drug-elution and surface coatings are the most studied and display the most promise for advancing ureteral stent use and efficacy. This article reviews these two strategies in detail to determine their clinical potential and guide future research in the area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it