MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115466892 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.11250

Surgeon-controlled robotic partial nephrectomy for a rare renal epitheliois angiomyolipoma using near-infrared fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green dye: A case report and literature review

2012· article· en· W2115466892 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Timil Patel, Ashok K. Hemal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberous Sclerosis Complex Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNephrectomyIndocyanine greenAngiomyolipomaEpithelioid cellMedicineRenal cell carcinomaPathologyEosinophilicGiant cellClear cellRadiologyKidneyInternal medicineImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma (E-AML) is a rare variant of angiomyolipoma (AML). It is a mesenchymal tumour believed to originate from the perivascular epithelioid cell (PEC). Unlike conventional AML which are benign, E-AML has a rare aggressive behaviour. Conventional AML is typically triphasic containing adipose tissue, smooth muscle and dystrophic vessels in variable proportions, while E-AML are generally composed of plump spindled and polygonal-shaped "epithelioid cells" showing clear or eosinophilic cytoplasm and occasional pleomorphic multinucleated giant cells. E-AML can be misdiagnosed as renal cell carcinoma (RCC) when these "epithelioid cells" show clearing. Only a small number of cases of E-AML have been reported with the standard treatment being radical or partial nephrectomy. We report the first case report of a surgeon-controlled robotic partial nephrectomy using a near-infrared fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green dye on a 25-year-old woman with a T1B (6.6 cm) right renal mass. The final pathology revealed the diagnosis of E-AML. There was no recurrence and metastases after the 6-month follow-up.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicTuberous Sclerosis Complex ResearchFrench-language works237,207