Retroperitoneal fibrosis: a case report of spontaneous resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this case report is to document an occurrence of spontaneous resolution of idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis and to review the investigation and management of this unusual condition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A detailed case summary of a patient with retroperitoneal fibrosis is presented. Current citations in Index medicus from the English-speaking literature of relevance to the topic were reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient who refused open surgical intervention, bilateral stent placement allowed stabilization of renal function. CT-guided biopsy did not reveal malignancy. Serial CT imaging demonstrated gradual disappearance of the retroperitoneal mass. From the literature review, spontaneous resolution of this condition appears to be a rare phenomenon. Although often utilized, CT-guided biopsy may fail to exclude the presence of malignancy. Open surgical biopsy of the retroperitoneal mass and ureterolysis remain the standard of care for operative candidates. Establishing renal drainage and considering a trial of steroids or surveillance may be an option in carefully selected individuals.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".