Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the most commonly contended scenarios where stents may or may not be utilized. It appraises the medical literature surrounding these scenarios and provides an examination of the supporting evidence behind their management. The chapter also focuses on ureteral calculi-related obstruction and resultant infected hydronephrosis. Ureteral stenting after endoscopic lithotripsy is thought to prevent ureteral obstruction and renal colic that may develop secondary to stone manipulation. The chapter provides references to and describes the results of critically appraised literature in order to support diagnostic and treatment measures for acute infectious obstruction. It examines the evidence for the use of ureteric stents during a percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The current ureteral guidelines for the management of ureteral calculi endorsed by the AUA and EUA groups state the use of ureteral stenting after ureteroscopy for stone management is an optional adjunctive procedure.
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 | 0.019 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.006 |
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".