MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070363335 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.10002

Virtual cystoscopy: the evaluation of bladder lesions with computed tomographic virtual cystoscopy

2011· article· en· W2070363335 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Osman Raif Karabacak, Esįn Çakmakçi, Ufuk Öztürk, Fuat Demirel, Alper Dilli, Baki Hekįmoğlu, Uğur Altuğ

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystoscopyMedicineRadiologyUrinary bladderBiopsyUrinary systemUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Our objective was to assess the accuracy of computed tomographic virtual cystoscopy (CTVC) in the detection of urinary bladder lesions. METHODS: Twenty-five patients were examined using CTVC. Bladder scanned using multislice CT at a slice thickness of 1 mm. The data were transferred to a workstation for interactive navigation using surface rendering. Findings obtained from CTVC were compared with results from conventional cystoscopy and with pathological findings. RESULTS: Thirty-eight lesions were identified. The smallest was 0.2 × 0.3 cm; the largest was 7 × 4.5 cm. Both CTVC and conventional cystoscopy were used. Conventional cystoscopy detected the same number of lesions that were detected by CTVC. On morphological examination, 26 of the lesions were polypoid, 7 were sessile and 5 were bladder wall-thickening. While one of the polypoid lesions was reported as an inverted papilloma, 2 of the 5 lesions that were identified as wall-thickening were malignant and 3 were benign. The sensitivity of using CTVC to identify neoplasias was 100%; the accuracy was 89%. CONCLUSION: Although the definitive diagnosis of some suspected urinary bladder tumours is only possible with conventional cystoscopy and biopsy, CTVC is a minimally invasive technique which provides beneficial information about urinary bladder lesions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207