Mechanisms of Pulse Modulated Holmium:YAG Lithotripsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed at answering three research questions: (1) Under the experimental conditions studied, what is the dominant mechanism of Holmium:YAG lithotripsy with or without pulse modulation? (2) Under what circumstances can laser pulse modulation increase crater volume of stone ablation per joule of emitted radiant energy? (3) Are BegoStone phantoms a suitable model for laser lithotripsy studies? Materials and Methods: The research questions were addressed by ablation experiments with BegoStone phantoms and native stones. Experiments were performed under three stone conditions: dry stones in air, hydrated stones in air, and hydrated stones in water. Single pulses with and without pulse modulation were applied. For each pulse mode, temporal profile, transmission through 1 mm water, and cavitation bubble collapse pressures were measured and compared. For each stone condition and pulse mode, stones were ablated with a fiber separation distance of 1 mm and crater volumes were measured using optical coherence tomography. Results: Pulses with and without pulse modulation had high (>80%) transmission through 1 mm of water. Pulses without pulse modulation generated much higher peak pressures than those with pulse modulation (62.3 vs 11.4 bar). Pulse modulation resulted in similar or larger craters than without pulse modulation. Trends in BegoStone crater volumes differed from trends in native stones. Conclusions: This results of this study suggest that the dominant mechanism is photothermal with possible photoacoustic contributions for some stone compositions. Pulse modulation can increase ablation volume per joule of emitted radiant energy, but the effect may be composition specific. BegoStones showed unique infrared ablation characteristics compared with native stones and are not a suitable model for laser lithotripsy studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".