Thulium Fiber Laser: game changer or marketing hype?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Description: The Holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser has become the gold-standard intracorporeal lithotripsy device since it was first introduced in the 1980’s. More recently, the Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) was introduced into the clinical setting, with the potential to address some of the inherent limitations with Ho:YAG devices. In particular, early experience suggested the TFL provided enhanced dusting and fragmenting capabilities, less retropulsion and better stone free rates compared to the Ho:YAG laser. Relevance: Should the initial claims of the TFL’s better dusting properties be confirmed, this would be a significant advancement in the field. The ability to dust larger stones more rapidly could enhance the role of ureteroscopy and reduce the need for more invasive procedures. Conclusion: The initial experience with the TFL is promising and suggests an advantage over Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy. Properly conducted prospective randomized trials are required to further delineate the advantages, disadvantages and to optimize patient outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.017 |
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".