A practical pressure measuring method for the upper urinary tract during ureteroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop and test a method for measuring pressure in the upper urinary tract during ureteroscopic operations and to evaluate its efficacy and clinical significance. METHODS: A total of 44 patients, each with a ureteral calculus in the proximal ureteral segment, were enrolled in the study group: 21 patients with an acute and 23 with a chronic obstruction. The ureteroscope was passed forward to the upper segment of the obstructed ureter immediately after the calculus was broken and the intraluminal ureteral pressure was then transmitted along with the irrigant flow (0.9% sodium chloride). RESULTS: The mean ureteral pressures of the acute obstruction subgroup, the chronic obstruction subgroup and the control group were 74.5 mmHg (22-180 mmHg), 32.5 mmHg (9-53 mmHg) and 10.2 mmHg (8-13 mmHg), respectively. A significant correlation was found between ureteral pressure and the following indexes: the duration of the obstruction (r=0.985), the diameter of the ureter above the calculus (r=0.878) and the depth of the hydronephrosis of the renal pelvis (r=0.862). No associations were observed between the pressure and the serum creatinine level (r=0.214) or the urinary leukocyte count (r=0.047). The intraluminal pressure correlated with the glomerular flow rate (GFR) of the affected kidney (r =0.975, P =0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This new method is non-invasive, practical and reproducible. Measuring the intraluminal pressure of the ureter can provide a valuable index to quantify the severity of the obstruction of the upper urinary tract, which is helpful for the prediction of the affected renal function prognosis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".