Robot-assisted right ureteral polypectomy: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ureteral polyps are a rare cause of ureteral obstruction in the adult and pediatric populations. Fibroepitheial polyps (FEP) are the most common type of ureteral polyps. This clinical entity is very rare, warranting periodic clinical review by practitioners, and new advancements in laparoscopy allow new surgical approaches to its cure. We present the case of a 20-year-old male with right-sided flank pain. He was found to have right ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction and subsequently underwent laparoscopic robotic-assisted right collecting system exploration, excision of polyps and right ureteropyeloplasty. Ureteral polyps were excised and determined to be fibroepithelial in origin based on the pathological report. Our case highlights the importance of having FEP in the differential diagnosis of ureteral obstruction. We also found that laparoscopic robot-assisted polypectomy is a safe and acceptable surgical option for the excision of ureteral polyps.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| 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".