Evaluation of a Single-Use Flexible Cystoscope: A Multi-Institutional International Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:Acquisition costs and prohibitively expensive technical support for endoscope maintenance, repair, and reprocessing have deterred adoption of flexible cystoscopes by many urologists internationally. This study evaluated the performance of a novel single-use digital cystoscope that can directly connect to a laptop or computer monitor for visualization, obviating the need for a tower. Materials and Methods:The performance characteristics of flexible single-use cystoscopes (NeoScope) were prospectively evaluated vs a reusable flexible cystoscope (Olympus) in three clinical cases and two independent benchtop testing episodes in Canada. Cystoscope maneuverability, imaging, deflection, irrigation, and ease of use of instrumentation were investigated. Additional investigations were performed during clinical use in Zimbabwe (7 patients), Egypt (10 patients), and Dominica (5 patients). Results:Bench testing revealed smaller tip diameter (4.06 vs 6.09 mm) and shorter (35.4 vs 38 cm) single-use cystoscopes vs reusable cystoscopes. Deflection of the single-use scope was superior with an empty working channel (230 up/220 down) vs the reusable (195 up/95 down) but showed a more substantial decrease in deflection on placement of instruments including a grasper. Clinical use revealed satisfactory maneuverability, ease of use of instruments, deflection, and visualization. Conclusions: Benchtop testing performance of the single-use digital flexible cystoscopes was inferior compared with reusable digital cystoscopes. However, these single-use endoscopes offer adequate illumination, imaging, and maneuverability. Direct connection to any computer monitor allowed truly portable use, allowing for treatment of patients in a variety of clinical settings without the need for ancillary equipment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".