MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036950245 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.004

A Comprehensive Review of Pediatric Urachal Anomalies and Predictive Analysis for Adult Urachal Adenocarcinoma

2014· review· en· W2036950245 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary and Genital Oncology Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalignancyDemographicsGeneral surgeryGynecologyPathologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We examined the presentation, diagnosis and management of radiologically detected pediatric urachal anomalies and assessed the risk of malignant degeneration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our radiology database (2000 to 2012) was queried for all children younger than 18 years who were diagnosed with a urachal anomaly radiographically, and the operative database was used to determine those who underwent excision. Data collected included demographics, presenting symptoms, imaging modality and indication for excision. These data were compared to the Ontario Cancer Registry to determine the risk of malignancy. RESULTS: A total of 721 patients were radiographically diagnosed with a urachal anomaly (667 incidentally), yielding a prevalence of 1.03% of the general pediatric population. Diagnoses were urachal remnants (89% of cases), urachal cysts (9%) and patent urachus (1.5%). Ultrasonography was the most common imaging modality (92% of cases), followed by fluoroscopy/voiding cystourethrography (5%) and computerized tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (3%). A total of 61 patients (8.3%) underwent surgical excision. Indications for imaging and treatment were umbilical drainage (43% of patients), abdominal pain (28%), palpable mass (25%) and urinary tract infection (7%). Mean age at excision was 5.6 years and 64% of the patients were male. Based on provincial data, the number needed to be excised to prevent a single case of urachal adenocarcinoma was 5,721. CONCLUSIONS: Urachal anomalies are more common than previously reported. Children with asymptomatic lesions do not appear to benefit from prophylactic excision, as the risk of malignancy later in life is remote and a large number of urachal anomalies would need to be removed to prevent a single case of urachal adenocarcinoma.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.303 · 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