MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895605570 · doi:10.1111/bju.12121

Urinary diversion after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: options, patient selection, and outcomes

2013· review· en· W1895605570 on OpenAlexaff
Richard K. Lee, Hassan Abol‐Enein, Walter Artibani, Bernard H. Bochner, Guido Dalbagni, Siamak Daneshmand, Yves Fradet, Richard E. Hautmann, Cheryl T. Lee, Seth P. Lerner, Armin Pycha, Karl‐Dietrich Sievert, Arnulf Stenzl, G.N. Thalmann, Shahrokh F. Shariat

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystectomyUrinary diversionMedicineBladder cancerContext (archaeology)Urinary systemSurgeryStoma (medicine)General surgeryUrologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The urinary reconstructive options available after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer are discussed, as are the criteria for selection of the most appropriate diversion, and the outcomes and complications associated with different diversion options. OBJECTIVE: To critically review the peer-reviewed literature on the function and oncological outcomes, complications, and factors influencing choice of procedure with urinary diversion after RC for bladder carcinoma. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A Medline search was conducted to identify original articles, review articles, and editorials on urinary diversion in patients treated with RC. Searches were limited to the English language. Keywords included: 'bladder cancer', 'cystectomy', 'diversion', 'neobladder', and 'conduit'. The articles with the highest level of evidence were selected and reviewed, with the consensus of all of the authors of this paper. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Both continent and incontinent diversions are available for urinary reconstruction after RC. In appropriately selected patients, an orthotopic neobladder permits the elimination of an external stoma and preservation of body image without compromising cancer control. However, the patient must be fully educated and committed to the labour-intensive rehabilitation process. He must also be able to perform self-catheterisation if necessary. When involvement of the urinary outflow tract by tumour prevents the use of an orthotopic neobladder, a continent cutaneous reservoir may still offer the opportunity for continence albeit one that requires obligate self-catheterisation. For patients who are not candidates for continent diversion, the ileal loop remains an acceptable and reliable option. CONCLUSIONS: Both continent and incontinent diversions are available for urinary reconstruction after RC. Orthotopic neobladders optimally preserve body image, while continent cutaneous diversions represent a reasonable alternative. Ileal conduits represent the fastest, easiest, least complication-prone, and most commonly performed urinary diversion.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.312
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations360
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207