MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing the minimum number of lymph nodes needed at radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer

2008· article· en· W2019812794 on OpenAlexaff
Umberto Capitanio, Nazareno Suardi, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Yair Lotan, Ganesh S. Palapattu, Patrick J. Bastian, Amit Gupta, Amnon Vazina, Mark Schoenberg, Seth P. Lerner, Arthur I. Sagalowsky, Pierre I. Karakiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystectomyLymphadenectomyLymph nodeLymphMedicineBladder cancerDissection (medical)UrologySurgeryCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify the likelihood of finding one or more positive lymph nodes (LNs) according to the number of LNs removed at radical cystectomy (RC), as the number of LNs removed affects disease progression and survival after RC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1984 and 2003, 731 assessable patients had RC and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy at three different institutions. ROC curve coordinates were used to determine the probability of identifying one or more positive LNs according to the total number of removed LNs. RESULTS: Of the 731 patients, 174 (23.8%) had LNs metastases. The mean (median, range) number of LNs removed was 18.7 (17, 1-80). The ROC coordinate-based plots of the number of removed LNs and the probability of finding one or more LNs metastases indicated that removing 45 LNs yielded a 90% probability. Conversely, removing either 15 or 25 LNs indicated, respectively, 50% and 75% probability of detecting one or more LNs metastases. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that removing 25 LNs might represent the lowest threshold for the extent of lymphadenectomy at RC. Our findings confirm the importance of an extended lymph node dissection.

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 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations81
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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