MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966494201 · doi:10.1089/end.2007.9971

Endoscopic Lymphadenectomy for Penile Carcinoma

2007· article· en· W1966494201 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGroinPenile cancerDissection (medical)SurgeryPenile CarcinomaLymphadenectomyInguinal canalPerioperativeCarcinomaPenisLymph nodeInguinal herniaHerniaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Groin dissection remains the gold standard for the treatment of penile carcinoma that has metastasized to the inguinal lymph nodes. However, it is associated with wound-related complications. Modified groin dissection offers a less-radical approach without compromising oncologic outcomes. We present our technique for endoscopic lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma (ELPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight patients with clinical stage T(2) N(0-3)M(0) penile carcinoma underwent ELPC. Preoperative Doppler ultrasound mapping of the inguinal lymph nodes and the saphenous vein was performed. RESULTS: Fourteen lymphadenectomies, including superficial with or without deep inguinal and pelvic-node dissection, were completed in eight patients. The median operative time was 91 minutes (range 50-150 minutes), and the mean number of nodes removed was 9 (range 4-15). No perioperative complications occurred. Lymphoceles developed in three groins (23%). No wound-related complications were seen. CONCLUSIONS: The ELPC is a safe and feasible technique that appears to diminish the wound-related complications associated with the standard open approach.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.336
Teacher spread0.314 · 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