MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Solitary solid renal mass: can we predict malignancy?

2012· article· en· W1512232973 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe D. Violette, Samuel Abourbih, Konrad Szymañski, Simon Tanguay, Armen Aprikian, K. Matthews, Fadi Brimo, Wassim Kassouf

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberous Sclerosis Complex Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrectomyMalignancyIncidence (geometry)Univariate analysisDiseaseLogistic regressionKidney diseaseRadiologyMultivariate analysisInternal medicineSurgeryKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? It is known that the majority (80%) of solid renal masses are malignant. Most of the literature suggests that smaller tumour size is associated with a higher incidence of benign disease. We have confirmed that decreased tumour size is associated with benign disease, particularly for lesions <2 cm. Once radiologically apparent angiomyolipomas are excluded, the incidence of benign disease with small renal masses is lower than reported in the literature (11%). Furthermore, we have shown that small renal masses in females have a higher association with benign disease. Patient age and tumour location were not predictive of benign histology. We have also stratified our risks not only for benign disease but also for clinically indolent renal cancers to help physicians counsel patients with regard to managing these solid renal masses. OBJECTIVE: • To determine the clinical predictors of benign disease in patients with solitary solid renal masses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Pathology reports of patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy at two hospitals from 1998 to 2008 were reviewed. • Only patients with solitary solid unilateral renal masses were included. • Predictors of malignancy risk were assessed with univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: • A total of 592 patients with a mean (sd) age of 60 (13) years were included, 38% of whom were women. Radical and partial nephrectomy was performed in 66% and 34% of patients, respectively. • Renal masses were equally distributed on the right and left sides (49% vs 51%, P= 0.84). Masses were more commonly located in the upper and lower poles than in the mid pole (40.8% vs 38.7% vs 20.5%, respectively). • The mean tumour size was larger in patients who underwent radical compared with partial nephrectomy (6.8 cm vs 2.9 cm, P < 0.001). The rate of benign disease in our overall population was 9.5%. • On univariate and multivariate analysis, only a renal mass size <2 cm and female gender were predictive of benign disease. On further analysis the magnitude of this effect was found to be additive. CONCLUSIONS: • Renal masses <2 cm and female gender were associated with a higher probability of benign disease. • Patient age and tumour location were not predictive of benign disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicTuberous Sclerosis Complex ResearchFrench-language works237,207