MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142856250 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.019

Will Radio Frequency Ablation Become “Routine First Line Answer” for Small Renal Masses?

2012· letter· en· W2142856250 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph L. Chin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCryoablationNephrectomyRenal cell carcinomaKidney cancerMalignancyRadiofrequency ablationRenal massAblationRadiologyKidneyGeneral surgerySurgeryOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No AccessJournal of UrologyEditorial1 Apr 2012Will Radio Frequency Ablation Become “Routine First Line Answer” for Small Renal Masses? Joseph L. Chin Joseph L. ChinJoseph L. Chin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.019AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Will Radio Frequency Ablation Become “Routine First Line Answer” for Small Renal Masses?." The Journal of Urology, 187(4), pp. 1153–1154 References 1 : The results of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol1969; 101: 297. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol2001; 166: 6. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol2011; 60: 39. Google Scholar 4 : Percutaneous cryosurgery for renal tumours. Br J Urol1995; 75: 132. Google Scholar 5 : Radiofrequency interstitial tumor ablation (RITA) is a possible new modality for treatment of renal cancer: ex vivo and in vivo experience. J Endourol1997; 11: 251. Google Scholar 6 : Cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation of the small renal mass: a meta-analysis. Cancer2008; 113: 2671. Google Scholar 7 : Thermal ablation therapy for focal malignancy: a unified approach to underlying principles, techniques, and diagnostic imaging guidance. AJR Am J Roentgenol2000; 174: 323. Google Scholar 8 : Renal cryoablation: outcome at 3 years. J Urol2005; 173: 1903. Link, Google Scholar 9 : EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urol2010; 58: 398. Google Scholar 10 : Guidelines for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol2009; 182: 1271. Link, Google Scholar Division of Urology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4April 2012Page: 1153-1154 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Joseph L. Chin 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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2120.069

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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