Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue contains two Review Articles, nine Original Articles, two Procedures, one Case Report and four Letters to the Editor. The two Reviews describe the topics of kidney cancer and prostate cancer. Gontero et al. (Turin, Italy) discussed active surveillance for small renal masses. They concluded that active surveillance is feasible and safe in elderly and comorbid patients. Regarding prostate cancer, Ahmed and Li (San Francisco, USA) reviewed current perspectives regarding key questions about two models, “adaptation” and “clonal selection”, in the course of progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer. In the Original Articles, five articles are about urological cancer, and four articles are about urinary continence and voiding functions. In relation to low-stage renal cell carcinoma, Sun et al. (Montreal, Canada) reported worse cancer-specific mortality in patients with nodal metastasis at nephrectomy. Sejima et al. (Yonago, Japan) analyzed the outcomes after radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. They concluded that post-radical nephrectomy renal function insufficiency can lead to a poor prognostic outcome, especially in patients with T1 tumors. For patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy, Simone et al. (Rome, Italy) evaluated the impact of an extended versus a standard pelvic lymph node dissection. They supported an extended pelvic lymph node dissection as the optimal staging and therapeutic procedure. In the management of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, Del Rosso et al. (L'Aquila, Italy) described depending on their single center randomized controlled trial that bipolar transurethral resection showed a safe and effective procedure. In an Editorial Comment on this paper, Naselli (Castellanza, Italy) said that their data are insufficient to support bipolar transurethral resection of bladder tumor as a new standard. On prostate cancer, Abdollah et al. (Montreal, Canada) discussed and concluded that none of the guidelines can be regarded as an ideal indication for pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. For this article, two interesting opinions appear in this issue as Editorial Comments. Gandaglia et al. (Milan, Italy) investigated the effect of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5-I) on urinary continence (UC) recovery after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. They reported that the use of PDE5-I significantly improved UC recovery after surgery. However, regarding this article, Gacci (Florence, Italy) mentioned, as an Editorial Comment, that further prospective randomized controlled trials with long-term follow up are necessary. About voiding function of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients, Masumori et al. (Sapporo, Japan) showed the 5-year outcome analysis of the α1-blocker, tamsulosin, as an initial treatment for patients with BPH. And they concluded that α1-blocker monotherapy might not be appropriate for achieving a good long-term outcome in patients with a large prostate volume and a large amount of residual urine. As for insensible urinary incontinence, Brucker et al. (New York, USA) reported a study to define urodynamic findings. They showed characteristic urodynamic findings and an association of incontinence with other symptoms. Moore et al. (Atlanta, USA) showed 2-year evaluation data of the MiniArc sling for treatment of stress urinary incontinence, and concluded that the procedure represents a safe and effective treatment option for both obese and non-obese patients. As Procedures, two interesting techniques are shown regarding laparoscopic surgery. Zarrelli et al. (Borgosesia, Italy) presented the knotless “three-U-stitches” technique for urethrovesical anastomosis in laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. Tsuji et al. (Nagoya, Japan) showed the identification method of the narrow lumen of the ureter using a Fogarty catheter during laparoscopic pyeloplasty. In the one Case Report in this issue, Suzuki et al. (Yamanashi, Japan) reported an interesting case of the first male patient reported in the literature with malignant mixed epithelial and stromal tumor of the kidney. As for the four Letters to the Editor, every opinion is interesting. None declared.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.130 | 0.056 |
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".