MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196121666 · doi:10.22374/jeleu.v4i2.122

Evolution of Percutaneous Renal Access

2021· article· en· W3196121666 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ananda Kumar Dhanasekaran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endoluminal Endourology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercutaneous nephrolithotomyPercutaneousMedicineNephrostomyPercutaneous nephrostomyOpen surgerySurgeryStentGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Nephrostomy insertion is a vital part of modern-day urology used to manage obstructed renal tract or gain percutaneous renal access. Method: We carried out a PubMed literature search on the history of the development of nephrostomies. Results: The first percutaneous nephrostomy was performed in 1864 on a child who died in 5 years. Nephroscopy was then described and performed in 1941 during an open surgery with subsequent advancement to percutaneous nephrolithotomy in 1976 and antegrade stent insertion in 1978. Conclusion: Clinical need and innovation have led to percutaneous renal access and subsequent stone treatment modality.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Endoluminal EndourologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207