Design and characterization of a novel braided biodegradable <scp>double‐J</scp> ureteral stent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ureteral stents in current clinical use are non‐degradable and have a large degree of curling at the ends. This end curling can cause discomfort to patients as well as renal or bladder irritation. In this study, a braided degradable ureteral stent was designed and characterized to eliminate these problems. Eight‐, 12‐, and 16‐strand poly(lactide‐co‐ε‐ caprolactone) (PLCL) monofilament‐braided degradable ureteral stents were prepared, and their tensile performance, radial support performance, in vitro degradation, fixation performance, bending resistance performance, and drainage performance were tested. Compared with the commonly used polyurethane (PU) stent, the tensile strengths of the three types of PLCL stents were higher, with the 12‐strand monofilament‐braided stent exhibiting the highest tensile strength (~508.06 MPa). In terms of radial support, the three PLCL stents meet clinical requirements. After repeated crimping‐rebounding of the braided stent, the support force recovery rate of the 12‐strand monofilament‐braided stent was the best, reaching 92%. In vitro degradation results showed that the 12‐strand stent still maintained good radial support after 8 weeks. The fixation strength of a 12‐strand monofilament‐braided stent with a single loop on the J‐shaped end meets clinical requirements. Even after repeated bending, the 12‐strand monofilament‐braided stent can maintain the stability of the structure with excellent drainage performance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".