MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048624682 · doi:10.1177/1756287209103921

Review: Prostate capsule sparing radical cystectomy: oncologic safety and clinical outcome

2009· article· en· W2048624682 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Klotz

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Urology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystectomyMedicineCystoprostatectomyUrologyProstateProstate cancerProstatectomyBladder cancerUrinary diversionCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Prostate capsule sparing radical cystectomy (PSRC) is a modification of the traditional surgical approach to radical cystectomy and neobladder, which offers the prospect of improved preservation of erectile function and continence. METHODS: This is a review of the literature regarding the oncologic and quality of life outcomes of this approach for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, and a comparison of these results to conventional cystoprostatectomy and neobladder. RESULTS: There are a limited number of studies addressing prostate capsule or prostate sparing cystectomy. All are retrospective, non-comparative and not uniform in terms of patient selection and technique. Long-term follow-up is lacking. The incidence of synchronous and or metachronous prostate cancer and TCC of the prostatic urethra is lower than that found in conventional cystoprostatectomy. This is likely due to pre-operative patient selection, restricting the procedure to those with no evidence of prostatic involvement by either disease. The local recurrence rate is 5%, comparable to standard cystoprostatectomy. Recurrence free and overall survival rates are comparable.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Advances in UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207