MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095853234 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1080

Robotic renal surgery: The future or a passing curiosity?

2013· article· en· W2095853234 on OpenAlex
Jeff Warren, Vitor da Silva, Yves Caumartin, Patrick Luke

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyeloplastyNephrectomyMedicineRobotic surgeryProstatectomyGeneral surgeryInternal medicineUrinary systemKidneyHydronephrosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development, advancement and clinical integration of robotictechnology in surgery continue at a staggering pace. In no otherdiscipline has this rapid evolution occurred to a greater degreethan in urology. Although radical prostatectomy has grown tobecome the prototypical application for the robot, the role of therobot in renal surgery remains controversial. Herein we reviewthe literature on robotic renal surgery. A comprehensive PubMedliterature search was performed to identify all published reportsrelating to robotic renal surgery. All clinically related articlesinvolving human participants were critically appraised in thisreview. Fifty-one clinical articles were included, encompassingrobot-assisted pyeloplasty, nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy,living-donor nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. Feasibilityhas been shown for each of these procedures. Robot-assisted techniqueshave been described for almost all renal-related procedures.However, the intersect between feasibility and necessityas it pertains to robotic renal surgery has yet to be defined. Also,the high cost of surgical robotic technology mandates criticalappraisal before adoption, especially in a publicly funded healthcare system, such as the one present in Canada.Le développement, le perfectionnement et l’intégration en milieuclinique de la technologie robotique en contexte opératoire sepoursuit à un rythme stupéfiant. Aucune autre discipline n’a vucette évolution rapide à un niveau aussi élevé que l’urologie.Alors que la prostatectomie radicale en est devenue l’applicationprototype, le rôle de la robotique en chirurgie rénale demeurecontroversé. Dans l’article qui suit, nous passons en revue lalittérature portant sur l’emploi de la robotique en chirurgie rénale.Une recherche exhaustive dans la base de données PubMed aété effectuée afin de cerner les rapports sur le sujet. Tous les rapportscliniques portant sur des sujets humains ont été évalués.Cinquante et un articles cliniques ont été inclus dans notreanalyse, incluant des cas, tous assistés par robot, de pyéloplastie,de néphrectomie, de néphro-urétérectomie, de néphrectomiechez des donneurs vivants et de néphrectomie partielle. Pour chacunede ces interventions, la faisabilité a été démontrée. Des techniquesassistées par robot ont été décrites pour pratiquement tousles types d’interventions rénales. Néanmoins, le point d’intersectionentre faisabilité et nécessité concernant l’utilisation de larobotique reste à définir. Par ailleurs, le coût élevé de la robotiquechirurgicale justifie une évaluation critique avant l’adoptionde cette technologie, en particulier dans un système de santépublic comme celui du Canada.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.206 · 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