High-grade microscopic hematuria in adult men can predict urothelial malignancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Microscopic hematuria in men younger than 40 is a confusing issue to urologists, especially when these men have normal radiological findings. We report our experience in looking for urologic malignancy in this group of patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study for men with vague urological symptoms. We included men under 40 years old, men with microscopic hematuria greater than 25 red blood cells/high power field in 2 properly collected mid-stream urine samples, and men with free urine culture and normal multiphasic computed tomography abdomen and pelvis studies. All patients underwent diagnostic cystoscurethroscopy. If there were no lesions, multiple random biopsies were taken. In cases of apparently normal cystoscopic findings and associated renal colic, uretroscopy was done to the suspected side. RESULTS: Only 20 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The mean age of the patients were 34; 2 patients presented with pain. The other 18 patients were presenting with mild recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms. Cystoscopy showed small papillary low-grade tumour in 3 patients. All random biopsies were free of malignancy. Unilateral uretroscopy for the 2 cases presented with pain detected carcinoma in situ in one of them. CONCLUSION: Cystoscopy is highly recommended for young adult men, with significant levels of microscopic hematuria, due to the 20% incidence rate of associated urological malignancy. Random bladder biopsies, in the absence of suspicious lesions, have no diagnostic role, and should not be done. Uretroscopy is advised for patients with microscopic hematuria and loin pain, even in the absence of suspicious radiological findings.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".