Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyLetter to the Editor/Errata1 Jan 2016Reply by Hueber et al View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.120AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Reply by Hueber et al." The Journal of Urology, 195(1), pp. 229–230 References 1 : Common trend: move to enucleation—is there a case for GreenLight enucleation? Development and description of the technique. World J Urol2015; 33: 539. Google Scholar 2 : Transurethral GreenLight laser enucleation of the prostate—a feasibility study. J Endourol2011; 25: 1199. Google Scholar 3 : Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates >70 g: 24-month follow-up. Eur Urol2006; 50: 563. Google Scholar 4 : Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol2008; 53: 160. Google Scholar 5 : Trends and attitudes in surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Can J Urol2012; 19: 6170. Google Scholar 6 : Urological resident exposure to transurethral surgical options for BPH management in 2012-2013: a pan-Canadian survey. Can Urol Assoc J2014; 8: 54. Google Scholar 7 : Multicentre prospective evaluation of the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). BJU Int2015; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar 8 : Assessment of the learning curves for photoselective vaporization of the prostate using GreenLight™ 180-Watt-XPS laser therapy: defining the intra-operative parameters within a prospective cohort. World J Urol2014; 32: 539. Google Scholar 9 : HoLEP has come of age. World J Urol2015; 33: 487. Google Scholar © 2016 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 1January 2016Page: 229-230 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.042 |
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".