MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898418007 · doi:10.1089/end.2018.0432

Perceptions and Practice Patterns of Holmium Laser Goggles in Endourological Procedures: An Unnecessary Evil?

2018· article· en· W2898418007 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular and Laser Science Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLithotripsyLaser lithotripsyAblationLaser safetyOptometrySurgeryLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The holmium laser is used increasingly for a wide array of urological procedures. Laser safety goggles are mandatory at many centers for individuals within the nominal hazard zone, as set out by the institution. Recent ex vivo studies suggest standard eye wear may be equally as protective. We sought to evaluate the perceptions and practice patterns of laser safety goggles in urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 24-question survey was sent out through e-mail to an international e-mail list of ∼2000 urologists that were members of the Endourological Society. Data were collected anonymously using Survey Monkey. RESULTS: A total of 264 (14%) urologists completed the survey. Thirty-four percent worked in the community, whereas 63% worked at an academic institution. Ninety-seven percent routinely used the holmium laser. The most common uses were lithotripsy (99%), tissue incision (71%), tumor ablation (58%), and prostate ablation (26%). Formal laser training and institutional laser safety policies were reported in 76% and 64%, respectively. Forty percent of respondents routinely wore laser safety goggles. Laser adverse events were witnessed by 19%, but there were no eye injuries reported. Seventy percent of surgeons felt that laser safety goggles may impair their vision. When presented with the information that regular eye glasses may be as effective as laser goggles for preventing harm, the majority (86%) would opt for regular eye wear. CONCLUSIONS: Laser safety eyewear practice patterns vary greatly. Many centers have adopted policies for universal mandatory laser goggles in the operating room. With over two thirds of surgeons suggesting laser goggles impair their vision, and recent literature suggesting regular eye wear is equivalent in preventing laser-associated eye injuries, laser goggle safety policies should be updated to better match the potential hazards inherent to the device.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it