Canadian Urological Association Best Practice Report: Holmium: YAG laser eye safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the introduction of the Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser over 2 decades ago, it has become an indispensable tool in the urologist's armamentarium. More specifically, in the subspecialty of endourology, the Ho:YAG laser has revolutionized the approach to kidney, ureteral and bladder stones, endoluminal tumours, strictures and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) Since its widespread adoption, and as with other laser wavelengths there have been concerns regarding its safety. In particular, the potential risks of eye injury to patients and operating room personnel have led laser manufacturers and governing bodies (including the Canadian Standards Association (CSA)) to require/mandate that all intraoperative personnel wear laser safety goggles. Despite this recommendation, the actual risk of eye damage associated with the Ho:YAG laser during endourological procedures has not been clearly defined. The objectives of this best practice report are to review the current literature regarding the risks of eye injuries and to provide practical and evidence-based recommendations on eye safety with the use of the Ho:YAG laser. This best practice report was developed in conjunction with members of the Canadian Endourology Group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".