Clinicohistological characteristics of renal cell carcinoma in children: A multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this retrospective multicentre study, we compared the clinicohistological characteristics of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) between pediatric and adult patients. METHODS: Data for patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy for RCC between 1988 and 2014 at multiple institutions were collected. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to age at diagnosis: pediatric patients (age ≤18 years) and adult patients (age ≥40 years). The groups were compared for clinical and pathologic variables, and survival analysis was performed. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 64 (range: 30-91) months for pediatric patients versus 44 (range: 19-59) months for adult patients (p = 0.026). Pediatric patients were mostly female (p = 0.003), had symptoms at presentation (p < 0.001), and had a high-stage tumour (p = 0.014) than adult patients. Among the symptomatic patients, gross hematuria was the most common symptom. The median tumour size was not different between groups. Regarding histologic types, pediatric patients had more papillary tumours (p < 0.001), more unclassified tumours (p < 0.001), and fewer clear cell carcinomas (p < 0.001). Five-year cancer-specific survival rates were 85% and 87.4% in pediatric and adult patients, respectively (log rank p = 0.901). Recurrence-free survival was better in adult patients, although this did not reach statistical significance (log rank p = 0.272). This study has several limitations, including its retrospective nature and the relatively small number of pediatric RCC cases. CONCLUSION: RCC in children is rare and is characterized by features that differ from those in adult RCC. Prognosis did not differ between groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".