MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MP04-04 DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN IN VITRO KIDNEY MODEL FOR MEASURING INTRAPELVIC PRESSURE DURING URETEROSCOPY

2020· article· en· W3022969475 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anuj Patel, Ali H. Aldoukhi, Sami E. Majdalany, Jeffrey Plott, Khurshid R. Ghani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenal pelvisMedicineUreterUreteroscopyPelvisSiliconeIn vivoSurgeryBiomedical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: During ureteroscopy (URS), rises in intrapelvic pressure (IPP) may increase the risk of infectious complications. While IPP is well studied in in vivo models, it has only been studied in one modest in vitro model. Anatomically accurate in vitro models that can mimic IPP profiles of in vivo kidneys are lacking. The aims of this study were to (1) modify an in vitro kidney model for use in simulated ureteroscopic studies, (2) validate its IPP profile against in vivo data. METHODS: The distal end of the ureter of a synthetic kidney model that permits intrarenal navigation (Simagine Health, WA) was partially occluded with silicone to ensure a fluid-tight seal around inserted instruments. A screw-type Tuohy-Borst valve (Merit Medical, UT) was attached to a custom silicone tube that was inserted into a hole in the renal pelvis. A pressure sensor (Opsens, Canada) was fed through the valve into the pelvis. To calibrate the model, a Cobra ureteroscope (Richard Wolf, Germany) was inserted to the mid-pelvis. Under 200 cmH2O irrigation, the seal between the pressure sensor and the valve was adjusted until the kidney achieved a plateau IPP of 54 cmH2O, which is the reported human IPP at that irrigation pressure. Experiments were conducted with the Cobra scope placed in the mid-pelvis, with and without ureteral access sheaths (11/13, 13/15; Navigator, Boston Scientific, MA) at irrigation pressures of 61, 102, 153, and 193 cmH2O using an automated irrigation system (Endoflow, RocaMed, MN). Study outcome was steady state IPPs for each condition. RESULTS: Fluid flowed out of the valve at the renal pelvis in a controlled manner, which was critical to simulate ureteric outflow during URS. Figure 1 depicts the steady state IPP for each condition. With the use of a sheath, IPP remained below the pyelovenous backflow limit (40 cmH2O) at all irrigation pressures, while without a sheath, IPP surpassed this limit at higher irrigation pressures. Most importantly, the IPP for these conditions corresponded well with published data from in vivo studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our in vitro kidney model can simulate in vivo IPP profiles and can be tailored to different conditions by controlling fluid outflow. This model allows for bench testing of technologies aimed at mitigating rises in IPP during URS.Source of Funding: University of Michigan Kickstart Funding

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesFrench-language works237,207