The predictive value of diagnostic imaging for histological lesions of the upper poles in duplex systems with ureteroceles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the diagnostic imaging findings with the histological lesions in upper pole nephrectomy (UPN) specimens of duplex system ureteroceles, using renal ultrasonography (US) and nuclear renal scintigraphy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between 1992 and 2000, 86 patients with a ureterocele in a duplex system underwent surgery. The results from US were reviewed in 84 patients by a radiologist, for echogenicity, parenchymal thinning and hydronephrosis; 77 nuclear renal scans describing the differential function of the upper poles were also reviewed. Fifty‐five patients underwent UPN (25 antenatal, 30 postnatal; 18 intravesical, 37 extravesical) and the specimens were available for independent review by a pathologist, describing five histological categories, i.e. chronic interstitial inflammation, fibrosis, tubular atrophy, glomerulosclerosis and dysplasia. Histological lesions were categorized as severe (> 25%) or minimal (≤ 25%). Radiological features and the histology of UPN were then analysed, and correlated using Fisher's exact test and multivariate analysis. RESULTS Severe histological lesions were reported in 38 specimens (69%) and minimal lesions in 17 UPN specimens (31%). Severe parenchymal thinning was associated with a severe pathological lesion ( P < 0.02). There was no correlation with the echogenicity or degree of hydronephrosis. Dysplasia, found in 64% of specimens, did not correlate with increased echogenicity. Minimally functioning upper poles on nuclear renal scan (≤ 4% overall function) were significantly associated with severe histological lesions ( P = 0.01). There was no correlation between diagnostic imaging features and the mode of presentation or type of ureterocele. CONCLUSIONS Multivariate analysis, severe parenchymal thinning on renal US and minimal function on nuclear renal scan can be used to predict the severity of histological lesions of the upper pole. These results may be helpful in the making therapeutic decisions for patients with ureteroceles in duplex systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".