Laparoscopic right nephrectomy for live kidney donation: functional results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy has gained wide acceptance. However, the vast majority of surgeons perform left nephrectomies only, which may not always be in the best interest of the donor. Of 17 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies, 13 were done on the right side. The function of these grafts was compared with that of 17 kidneys previously procured by an open technique and with that of the four left laparoscopic grafts. Ischaemic damage was evaluated by post-operative nuclear scanning and urinary lysozyme, and graft function by creatinine and creatinine clearance. Results show that operating time was longer in the laparoscopic donors, but identical in right and left laparoscopic procurements. Ischaemic damage and function were similar, regardless of the side or the surgical technique. We can conclude that right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible and results in good graft function. Systematic harvesting from the left side may, therefore, not be justified.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".