Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyOriginal Research Articles1 Mar 2024Editorial CommentThis article comments on the following:Comparative Analyses and Ablation Efficiency of Thulium Fiber Laser by Stone Composition Joel M. H. Teichman, Nitesh Katta, and Thomas E. Milner Joel M. H. TeichmanJoel M. H. Teichman Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada , Nitesh KattaNitesh Katta Beckman Laser Institute, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California , and Thomas E. MilnerThomas E. Milner Beckman Laser Institute, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003833.01AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Editorial Comment." The Journal of Urology, 211(3), p. 454 REFERENCES 1. Comparative analyses and ablation efficiency of thulium fiber laser by stone composition. J Urol. 2024; 211(3):445-454. Link, Google Scholar 2. In pursuit of the optimal dusting settings with the thulium fiber laser: an in vitro assessment. J Endourol. 2023; 37(8):914-920. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 3. Free electron laser lithotripsy: threshold radiant exposures. J Endourol. 2000; 14(2):161-167. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 4. . Mechanisms of pulse modulated holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2021; 35(S3):S29-S36. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesJournal of Urology22 Dec 2023Comparative Analyses and Ablation Efficiency of Thulium Fiber Laser by Stone Composition Volume 211Issue 3March 2024Page: 454-454 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Joel M. H. Teichman Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada More articles by this author Nitesh Katta Beckman Laser Institute, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California More articles by this author Thomas E. Milner Beckman Laser Institute, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California More articles by this author 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 | 0.006 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.444 | 0.266 |
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".