The Effect of Renal Cysts on the Fragmentation of Renal Stones During Shockwave Lithotripsy: A Comparative <i>In Vitro</i> Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the potential effect of simple renal cysts (SRC) on stone fragmentation during shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in an in vitro model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The in vitro model was constructed using 10% ordnance gelatin (OG). Models were created to mimic four scenarios: Model A-with an air-filled cavity (suboptimal for stone fragmentation); model B-without a cavity (normal anatomy); model C-with a 3-cm serum filled cavity (to represent a small SRC); model D-with a 4-cm serum filled cavity (to represent a larger SRC). SWL was applied to 24 standardized phantom stones (weight of 2±0.1 g) in each model using a standardized protocol. Stone fragments were retrieved, then dried overnight at room air temperature. Fragmentation coefficient (FC) was calculated for each stone, for fragments<4 mm and <2 mm. RESULTS: The OG in vitro model was robust enough for the proposed research. There was no fragmentation evident in model A as expected. The mean FC was 29.7 (±20.5) and 39.7 (±23.7) for <4 mm fragments (P=0.069) and 7.6 (±4.1) and 10.6 (±6.7) for <2 mm fragments (P=0.047), for noncystic and cystic models, respectively. The mean FC was 29.7 (±20.5), 38.8 (±26.2) and 40.7 (±21.3) for <4 mm fragments (P=0.213) and 7.6 (±4.1), 11.1 (±8) and 10.2 (±5.3) for <2 mm fragments (P=0.138), for models B, C, and D, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our in vitro experiment confirms better stone fragmentation associated with SWL in the presence of adjacent SRC.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".