MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predictors of early mortality after radical nephrectomy with renal vein or inferior vena cava thrombectomy – a population‐based study

2012· article· en· W1537867181 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stanley A. Yap, David Horovitz, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Robert Abouassaly, Narhari Timilshina, Antonio Finelli

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrectomyInferior vena cavaSurgeryMortality ratePopulationRenal veinInternal medicineKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Prognosis (cohort) Level of Evidence 2a. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Surgical volume has been well established as a predictor of outcomes for several complex surgical procedures, yet few studies have evaluated this relationship with regards to radical nephrectomy with either renal vein or inferior vena cava thrombectomy. In addition, most published literature consists of single-institution series from centres of excellence. We performed a population-level analysis and identified surgeon volume as a significant predictor of short-term mortality for this procedure. Such findings have potential implications regarding future policy and regionalization of care. OBJECTIVE: • To study the short-term mortality associated with radical nephrectomy with renal vein or inferior vena cava thrombectomy and the variables associated with this adverse outcome. METHODS: • Using the Ontario Cancer Registry, we identified 433 patients in the province of Ontario, Canada undergoing radical nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy between 1995 and 2004. • We determined mortality rates at postoperative days 30 and 90. • Other variables analysed include pathological tumour characteristics, surgeon graduation year, hospital/surgeon academic status, surgery year and hospital/surgeon volume. • We used multivariable logistic regression to assess outcomes. RESULTS: • Overall mortality was 2.8% (30-day) and 5.8% (90-day). • Surgeons performing a single nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy performed 14% of the cases and had the highest 30-day (6.7%) and 90-day (10%) mortality. The mortality rate for surgeons performing more than one surgery was 2.1% (30-day) and 5.1% (90-day). • In recent years, this procedure was performed more commonly by the highest volume surgeons - 67% of cases in 2004 vs 40% in 1995. • Significant predictors of 30-day mortality included procedure year and low surgeon volume. • Significant predictors of 90-day mortality included procedure year, low surgeon volume, left-sided tumour and increasing hospital volume. CONCLUSIONS: • For radical nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy, surgeon volume predicts short-term mortality, emphasizing the importance of experience in patient outcome. • Despite a shift towards high-volume surgeons, 13.8% of cases continued to be performed by low-volume providers. • If these results are confirmed in other jurisdictions, radical nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy should be regionalized and performed by surgeons who manage these cases regularly.

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)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207