MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083633182 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.095

The Results of Radical Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma

2016· article· en· W2083633182 on OpenAlexaff
Charles J. Robson, Bernard M. Churchill, William Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrectomyRenal cell carcinomaUrologyOncologyKidneyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No AccessJournal of Urology1 Feb 2017The Results of Radical Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma Charles J. Robson, Bernard M. Churchill, and William Anderson Charles J. RobsonCharles J. Robson , Bernard M. ChurchillBernard M. Churchill , and William AndersonWilliam Anderson View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.095AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail References 1 Bloom, H. J. and Wallace, D. M.: Hormones and the kidney: possible therapeutic role of testosterone in a patient with regression of metastases from renal adenocarcinoma. Brit. Med. J., 2: 476, 1964. Google Scholar 2 Bloom, H. J. G., Baker, W. H., Dukes, C. E. and Mitchley, B. C. V.: Hormone-dependent tumours of the kidney. II. Effect of endocrine ablation procedures on the transplanted oestrogen-induced renal tumour of the Syrian hamster. Brit. J. Cane., 17: 646, 1963. Google Scholar 3 Chute, R., Soutter, L. and Kerr, W. S., Jr.: Value of thoracoabdominal incision in removal of kidney tumors. New Engl. J. Med., 241: 951, 1949. Google Scholar 4 Mortensen, H.: Transthoracic nephrectomy. J. Urol., 60: 855, 1948. Google Scholar 5 Robson, C. J.: Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol., 89: 37, 1963. Google Scholar 6 Flocks, R. H. and Kadesky, M. C.: Malignant neoplasms of the kidney: an analysis of 353 patients followed 5 years or more. J. Urol., 79: 196, 1958. Google Scholar 7 Petkovic, S. A.: An anatomical classification of renal tumors in the adult as a basis for prognosis. J. Urol., 81: 618, 1959. Google Scholar 8 Riches, E.: Tumors of the Kidney and Ureter. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co., 1964. Google Scholar 9 Riches, E.: On carcinoma of the kidney. Ann. Roy. Coll. Surg., 32: 201, 1963. Google Scholar 10 Priestly, J. T.: Survival following the removal of malignant renal neoplasms. J. A. M. A., 113: 992, 1939. Google Scholar 11 Riches, E., Griffiths, J. H. and Thackray, A. C.: New growths of the kidney and ureter. Brit. J. Urol., 23: 297, 1951. Google Scholar 12 Kaufman, J. J. and Mims, M. M.: Tumors of the kidney. In: Current Problems in Surgery, February 1966. Google Scholar © 2002 by American Urological Association, Inc.®FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 2SFebruary 2017Page: S111-S113 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2002 by American Urological Association, Inc.®MetricsAuthor Information Charles J. Robson More articles by this author Bernard M. Churchill More articles by this author William Anderson More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1,161
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207