Feasibility of extended use of an electromagnetic lithotripter beyond the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study evaluates the effect of chronic usage, beyond the recommended maintenance schedule, on the efficacy of electromagnetic lithotripter. To our knowledge, there is no publication investigating the effect of chronic usage on the electromagnetic lithotripter, despite the maintenance schedule established by the manufacturers. Our goal is to verify if the acoustic parameters of the shock wave changed with usage, and if this change could be associated with change in clinical efficacy. METHODS: This study lasted 18 months. Every 6 months the lithotripter's efficacy was evaluated in two ways: objectively and clinically. Objective efficacy was measured using a piezoelectric hydrophone and artificial stones to capture the acoustic parameters and the crater of fragmentation, respectively. Clinical efficacy data was collected by studying the rate of successful extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment in patients with urolithiasis. The changes in clinical efficacy, acoustic parameters, and craters of fragmentation were compared and analyzed with appropriate statistical methods. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty five patients participated in the study. The clinical efficacy remained stable throughout the three observation periods (55.7%, 66.2% and 55.5%; p = 0.11). The focal head of the lithotripter was used three times the recommended schedule. There was no obvious change in the acoustic parameters of the shock waves, and the focal zone remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical efficacy of the electromagnetic lithotripter appears to be stable despite usage beyond the recommended maintenance schedule. More studies are needed to validate the safety of this practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".