703 THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RENAL TUMOR SCORING SYSTEMS AND PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY COMPLICATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Evaluation and Staging II1 Apr 2012703 THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RENAL TUMOR SCORING SYSTEMS AND PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY COMPLICATIONS Darren J. Desantis, Luke T. Lavallée, Rodney Breau, Fadi Kamal, Brian Blew, James Watterson, Ranjeeta Mallick, Dean Ferguson, Chris Morash, and Ilias Cagiannos Darren J. DesantisDarren J. Desantis Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author , Luke T. LavalléeLuke T. Lavallée Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author , Rodney BreauRodney Breau Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author , Fadi KamalFadi Kamal Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author , Brian BlewBrian Blew Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author , James WattersonJames Watterson Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author , Ranjeeta MallickRanjeeta Mallick Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author , Dean FergusonDean Ferguson Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author , Chris MorashChris Morash Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author , and Ilias CagiannosIlias Cagiannos Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.787AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Three renal mass scoring systems have been proposed to quantify difficulty of partial nephrectomy and risk of surgical complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the associations between each renal tumor scoring system and post-operative complications. METHODS A consecutive cohort of partial nephrectomy patients between 2002-2009 was analyzed. Patient characteristics were abstracted from the medical record and R.E.N.A.L Nephrometry Score, PADUA score and C Index were determined from pre-operative axial images by two independent reviewers. Consensus was achieved for all reviewer discrepancies. Patients were evaluated for post-operative complications up to 30 days following surgery. Pre-specified complication definitions were used for 33 potential complications and severity of each complication was described using the Clavien classification system. Results were analyzed for significance using a Student t-test. RESULTS A total of 118 patients were included in the study. Median R.E.N.A.L. score was 7 (IQR 5-8), median PADUA score was 8 (IQR 7-9.8) and mean C index was 3.9 (SD 2.10). A total of 76 complications were recorded. There were no deaths. There were 18 Grade I, 40 Grade II, 5 Grade IIIa, 4 Grade IIIb and 9 Grade IVa complications. There were no Grade IVb or V complications. Nephrometery score was associated with overall complications (mean score 7.0 vs 6.4, p=0.04) and genitourinary specific complications (mean score 7.7 vs 6.5, p=0.003) respectively. PADUA score was also highly associated with overall (mean 8.8 vs 8.1 p=0.01) and genitourinary specific complications (mean 9.7 vs 8.2, p=0.0002). Mean C index score was not significantly associated with overall or genitourinary specific complications. CONCLUSIONS Renal tumor scoring systems are useful tools to predict risk of complications after partial nephrectomy. Tumor scores should be taken into consideration in the decision making process of partial vs. radical nephrectomy. Prospective studies are required to further evaluate if one scoring system is a superior predictor for surgical complexity. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e288 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Darren J. Desantis Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Luke T. Lavallée Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Rodney Breau Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Fadi Kamal Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Brian Blew Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author James Watterson Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Ranjeeta Mallick Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Dean Ferguson Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Chris Morash Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Ilias Cagiannos Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement 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 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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".