Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the standard of care for ureteropelvic junction obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open pyeloplasty has been the gold standard treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Endopyelotomy, in spite of its inferior effectiveness, was sometimes preferred in select patients owing to its less invasive nature. Fortunately, over the past 2 decades a superior minimally invasive treatment has emerged with success rates equivalent to open pyeloplasty and complication rates equivalent to endopyelotomy. It is for good reason that laparoscopic pyeloplasty has become the new standard of care for the treatment of UPJO. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction is marked by renal outflow obstruction and may be asymptomatic or result in pain and complications, such as renal failure, pyelonephritis and calculus formation. Surgical management of UPJO aims to provide symptomatic relief and preserve remaining renal function. Today, treatment usually consists of either laparoscopic pyeloplasty or endopyelotomy. Its effectiveness, versatility and safety make laparoscopic pyeloplasty the optimal treatment for UPJO in virtually all circumstances.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".