Updated assessment of neoblader utilization and morbidity according to urinary diversion after radical cystectomy: A contemporary US-population-based cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this paper, we examine contemporary utilization rates and determinants of neobladder (NB) after radical cystectomy (RC) relative to ileal conduit (IC), as well as provide an updated assessment of postoperative morbidity and mortality between NB and IC. METHODS: Relying on the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), we abstracted patients who underwent RC between 2000 and 2010. Subsequently, NB and IC recipients were identified. Use of NB was assessed after accounting for case-mix. Propensity-based matched analyses were used to account for treatment selection biases. Generalized linear regression analyses focused on intra- and postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, blood transfusions and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The utilization rate of NB was 6.9% in 2000 and 9.1% in 2010 (p < 0.001). Younger, healthier, privately-insured and wealthier male individuals were more likely to receive a NB. High-volume hospitals were more likely to offer NB. In the post-propensity matched cohort, urinary diversion type failed to be significantly associated with the examined endpoints, except for intra- and postoperative complications (IC vs. NB odds ratio [OR]: 1.15, p = 0.04). INTERPRETATION: Despite comparable morbidity and mortality odds between NB and IC, as of the most contemporary year of the study (2010), IC remains the preferred urinary diversion type. Several sociodemographic factors were associated with NB.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".