MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200417183 · doi:10.1089/end.2021.0742

Mechanisms of Pulse Modulated Holmium:YAG Lithotripsy

2021· article· en· W4200417183 on OpenAlex
Jason B. King, Nitesh Katta, Joel M.H. Teichman, James W. Tunnell, Thomas E. Milner

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
KeywordsLithotripsyOpticsPulse (music)AblationLaserModulation (music)Ultrashort pulseImpact craterMaterials sciencePulse-width modulationMedicineSurgeryPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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