Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This issue consists of one Perspective, two Review Articles, seven Original Articles, two Short Communications, two Procedures and two other reports. The contents of these studies focus on various topics from the fields of basic science to clinical urology. Therefore, I believe that this issue may provide useful information to a wide variety of readers of International Journal of Urology. This issue starts with a perspective on photodynamic diagnosis of urothelial cancer by Matsuyama (Ube, Japan). In this interesting article, the author emphasized that false positive mucosa by photodynamic diagnosis might be a potential reason for exploring the mechanism of oncogenesis in urothelial cancer. This issue then includes two Review Articles describing clinically relevant topics. One is by Low and Sahi (Edmonton, Canada) overviewing the progress on the imaging of functional adrenal neoplasms. The authors clearly presented the key radiological observations of each type of these neoplasms using multimodality images, and concluded that familiarity with the imaging features of these neoplasms could contribute to facilitating appropriate decision-making and patient management. The other Review Article by Kondo and Tanabe (Tokyo, Japan) described the role of lymphadenectomy in the management of urothelial carcinoma. In this review, the authors asserted based on their own data that lymphadenectomy for urothelial cancer might have a potential role in not only staging, but also improving the oncological outcomes. Seven excellent articles are subsequently provided. Takeshita et al. (Tokyo, Japan) reported the impact of renal function on cardiovascular events in patients undergoing radical nephrectomy. The content of this article is a very hot topic, which might affect the selection of the surgical approach for patients with renal cell carcinoma. The authors of this article showed that postoperative renal dysfunction was a significant risk factor for cardiovascular events after radical nephrectomy in addition to age and history of cardiovascular disease. Soga et al. (Tsu, Japan) assessed the incidence of benign renal lesions in resected suspicious renal masses. In this article, the authors reported that the incidence of benign lesions ≥2 cm (3.5%) was significantly lower than that of masses <2 cm (16.2%), and identified female sex and small mass size (≥2 cm) as independent predictors for benign lesions. In the remaining five articles, Chen et al. (Taichung, Taiwan) described the malfunctions of the da Vinci robotic system in the field of urological surgery, Moreira et al. (Durham, USA) analyzed the association between prostate-specific antigen doubling time and cancer in men diagnosed by repeat prostate biopsy, Liu et al. (Oslo, Norway) investigated the significance of a highly proliferative immune-evasive B7-H3-expressing cell population in the malignant phenotype of prostate cancer, Lin et al. (Chongqing, China) characterized the features of resveratrol-induced apoptotic cell death in bladder cancer with respect to mitochondrial dysfunction, and Kaneko et al. (Sagamihara, Japan) carried out the comparative study of matrix proteins in different types of urinary stone by proteomic analysis with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. This issue also included two Short Communications and two Procedures assessing important topics. Veeratterapillay et al. (Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK) assessed whether the Kattan nomogram still accurately predict prognosis in renal cell carcinoma using the revised 2010 tumor–nodes–metastasis reclassification. Okegawa et al. (Mitaka, Japan) reported their initial experience with single-port retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy and concluded that this surgical procedure is equally efficacious as conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy. Brunocilla et al. (Bologna, Italy) described the surgical technique regarding the preservation of the smooth muscular internal sphincter and the proximal urethra during retropubic radical prostatectomy, which resulted in improved postoperative functional outcomes. Shen and Chiang (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) reported their preliminary experience with the penoscrotal approach for artificial sphincter implantation in male urinary incontinence. None declared.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».