MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084310241 · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(05)66015-6

RE: PORT SITE TUMOR RECURRENCES OF RENAL CELL CARCINOMA AFTER VIDEOLAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY

2001· letter· en· W2084310241 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jaime Landman, Ralph V. Clayman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2001
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNephrectomyMedicineRenal cell carcinomaCarcinomaUrologyMetastasisGeneral surgeryKidneyCancerPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No AccessJournal of UrologyCLINICAL UROLOGY: Letters to the Editor1 Aug 2001RE: PORT SITE TUMOR RECURRENCES OF RENAL CELL CARCINOMA AFTER VIDEOLAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY Jaime Landman and Ralph V. Clayman Jaime LandmanJaime Landman More articles by this author and Ralph V. ClaymanRalph V. Clayman More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66015-6AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "RE: PORT SITE TUMOR RECURRENCES OF RENAL CELL CARCINOMA AFTER VIDEOLAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY." The Journal of Urology, 166(2), pp. 629–630 References 1 : Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a five-year experience. Urology1999; 53: 280. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 2 : Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy: a 9-year experience. J Urol2000; 164: 1153. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with morcellation for renal cell carcinoma: the Saskatoon experience. Urology1998; 52: 23. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 4 : Metastatic renal cell carcinoma after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: long-term follow-up. J Endourol2000; 14: 407. Google Scholar Division of Urology, Washington University Medical Center, 4360 Children’s Place, Box 8242, St. Louis, Missouri 63110© 2001 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited bySong J, Kim E, Mobley J, Vemana G, Tanagho Y, Vetter J, Bhayani S, Russo P, Fugita O, Yang S, Iwamura M and Figenshau R (2014) Port Site Metastasis after Surgery for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Harbinger of Future MetastasisJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 2, (364-368), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2014.MICALI S, CELIA A, BOVE P, DE STEFANI S, SIGHINOLFI M, KAVOUSSI L and BIANCHI G (2018) TUMOR SEEDING IN UROLOGICAL LAPAROSCOPY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEYJournal of Urology, VOL. 171, NO. 6 Part 1, (2151-2154), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2004.TSIVIAN A and SIDI A (2018) PORT SITE METASTASES IN UROLOGICAL LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERYJournal of Urology, VOL. 169, NO. 4, (1213-1218), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2003. Volume 166Issue 2August 2001Page: 629-630 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2001 by American Urological Association, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jaime Landman More articles by this author Ralph V. Clayman 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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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