Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (<i>Br J Surg</i> 2004; 91: 344–348)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir Analysis of their own experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy leads the authors to conclude that the procedure is safe. We would argue that a graft loss rate of 6 per cent is worrying and does not allow this optimistic statement, even if one of the three losses was due to rejection. In addition, we question the benefits of hand assistance versus a conventional trans or retroperitoneal approach through a short subcostal or lumbar incision. Hand assistance decreases the minimally invasive nature of the endoscopic operation and we therefore favour a pure endoscopic technique1. The endoscopic approach may be more difficult but the learning curve is not necessarily steep if a careful step-by-step preparation of the team is planned2. Finally, it should be emphasized that live kidney donors are not patients but healthy, altruistic volunteers whose safety must be the main concern of the operating surgeon. Conversion to an open procedure in case of a life-threatening complication is therefore to be regarded as a disaster rather than a technical failure.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".