Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Objective: Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (SWL) still represents the most commonly used treatment modality for the management of urinary tract calculi.Various technologies exist for shockwave generation including electrohydraulic, electromagnetic and piezoelectric.Several studies comparing electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripters have shown mixed results.Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a new electromagnetic lithotripter compared to our previous electrohydraulic lithotripter.Methods: We compared 100 patients treated with the Philips Lithotron Ultra electrohydraulic lithotripter with 100 patients treated with the Storz Modulith SLX F2 electromagnetic lithotripter, matched on stone area (mm 2 ), location, and BMI.The outcome measured was stone free rate and success rate at 2 weeks and 3 months.Success was defined as being either stone free, having residual sand or an asymptomatic fragment <4mm on KUB x-ray.We also compared complications and need for ancillary procedures between the two groups.In all patients, SWL treatment was continued to a maximum of 3000 shocks or until there was clear fluoroscopic evidence of complete fragmentation. Results:The two groups were comparable in terms of stone size, location and density, BMI, presence of a stent and skin-to-stone distance.Univariate analysis showed no difference between the two groups for stone free or success rate at 2 weeks and 3 months.There was no difference in the complication rate and need for ancillary procedure between the groups.However, there was a trend toward a greater incidence of subcapsular hematoma in the Storz group that was not statistically significant (p=0.12).On average a significantly fewer number of shocks were administered with the Storz unit (p=0.02).Logistic regression, adjusting for stone size and location, BMI, presence of a stent and type of lithotripter, showed no effect for type of lithotripter.Stone size (p=0.002)and presence of a stent (p=0.025) were the only significant predictors of stone free rate at 3 months in this model. Conclusion:The Phillips Lithron Ultra and Storz Modulith SLX F2 had equivalent stone free and success rates at 2 weeks and 3 months.However, the Storz Modulith demonstrated more efficient fragmentation as fewer shocks were administered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.595 | 0.261 |
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".