MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327498293 · doi:10.1097/spc.0b013e328354a1d8

Renal and urologic problems

2012· review· en· W2327498293 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Liberman, Michael McCormack

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstructive uropathyIntensive care medicineUrinary diversionLife expectancyUrologic diseaseQuality of life (healthcare)Urinary systemBladder cancerCancerCystectomyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to review the recent literature concerning obstructive uropathy from advanced cancer. This factor is relevant as it is often a difficult task for physicians to estimate a patient's life expectancy and evaluate the possible benefit of urinary diversion. Recent research has addressed this issue. We now have objective criteria to stratify the possible benefit of urinary diversion in patients with malignant obstructive nephropathy. RECENT FINDINGS: When dealing with ureteric obstruction treatment must be individualized and risk stratification is of paramount importance. There is no clear evidence that urinary diversion improves quality of life and treatment decisions must be individualized. The decision to treat obstructive nephropathy in the palliative setting should include the patient, his family and members of the support team. SUMMARY: Ureteric stents and percutaneous nephrostomies are the preferred initial treatment options, although stent infection, encrustation and blockages are common problems. New compression-resistant metallic stents seem promising for patients with a malignant disease who require long-term urinary drainage. When more conservative measures have failed, supra-vesical reconstruction and diversion may be an option.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative CareSame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207