MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411830746 · doi:10.1007/s00345-025-05761-8

Novel non-invasive intrarenal pressure monitoring devices in flexible ureteroscopy: an in-vitro comparative study

2025· article· en· W4411830746 on OpenAlexaff
Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Zixiao Chen, Alex Qinyang Liu, Chi‐Ho Leung, Ivan Ching‐Ho Ko, Chi Kwok Chan, Bhaskar Somani, Thomas Herrmann, Helene Jung, Theodoros Tokas, Stefanie Croghan, Olivier Traxer, Peter Ka Fung Chiu, Ben H. Chew, Jeremy Yuen‐Chun Teoh, Vineet Gauhar, Zheng Li, Chi‐Fai Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Urology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUreteroscopyGold standard (test)NephrologyBiomedical engineeringUrologyInternal medicineUreter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Intrarenal pressure monitoring is emerging as an important tool in flexible ureteroscopy. Novel non-invasive intrarenal pressure monitoring devices are introduced. We evaluated the pressure readings simultaneously across four novel non-invasive intrarenal pressure monitoring devices against the urodynamic system. Materials and methods Two IRP monitoring single-use flexible ureteroscopy: LithoVue Elite ™ (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA, USA); ZebraScope ™ (Happiness Works Medical Instruments Co., Ltd, Anhui, China); two intelligent intrarenal system integrated with irrigation and suction via flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath: i-MIMERsys ™ (ZSR Biomedical Technology Co., Ltd, Dongguan, China); Tidor ™ (YiGao Medical Technology Co., Ltd, Zhejiang, China) were tested against MMS/Laborie Nexam Pro Urodynamic System (Laborie Medical Technologies Corporation, Portsmouth, USA). Results The degree of agreement between measurements from urodynamic system and the experimented device was demonstrated by Bland–Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Compared to the urodynamic system, the average difference ± standard deviation of LithoVue Elite™ was 0.26 ± 1.75mmHg; ZebraScope™ 3.22 ± 1.86mHg, i-MIMERsys™ 0.96 ± 2.26mmhg; Tidor™ 1.09 ± 2.57mmHg. Pressure measured by LithoVue Elite™, ZebraScope™, i-MIMERsys™ and Tidor™ to urodynamic system showed excellent ICCs of 0.975 ( p < 0.001), 0.915( p = 0.016), 0.955( p < 0.001) and 0.937( p < 0.001) respectively. Conclusion Pressure recordings from four novel non-invasive intrarenal monitoring devices, namely flexible ureteroscopes—LithoVue Elite ™ , ZebraScope ™ ; and intelligent IRP monitoring systems via flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths — i-MIMERsys ™ , Tidor ™ . were comparable to that of urodynamic system. This in-vitro study verifies that such non-invasive devices provide reliable data for monitoring intrarenal pressure changes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of UrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207