Follow-up guidelines after radical or partial nephrectomy for localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) comprises approximately 2% of all malignancies. It is the seventh most common cancer and tenth most common cause of cancer-related deaths among men.1 Risk factors for RCC include smoking, obesity, and hereditary conditions associated with a mutation in the von-Hippel-Lindau gene (level 2).2,3 Surgical resection (radical or partial nephrectomy) remains the only effective therapy for clinically localized RCC. Publications that address surveillance after surgical extirpation are based on retrospective analysis, including some larger multicentre studies and well-designed controlled studies.4 Randomized prospective studies are sparse, rendering it difficult to obtain qualified evidence-based data. Although there is no clear consensus on surveillance after surgical extirpation for patients with RCC, this document attempts to provide some clarity and guidance for the practising urologist based on the current literature. Where possible, levels of evidence and grades of recommendations are provided employing the modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine scheme.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".