Growth characteristics of renal cortical tumors in patients managed by watchful waiting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize tumor growth of patients managed conservatively for renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: Patients electing conservative management of radiographically determined renal cell carcinomas were referred to a surveillance database. Exclusion criteria consisted of locally advanced disease (>T2) and those with metastatic disease. Clinical follow-up included renal imaging with ultrasound or computed tomography at least every 6 months. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were originally managed conservatively, two of whom subsequently underwent nephrectomy because of rapid tumor growth. Mean follow-up was 26 months. Mean tumor volume and diameter at presentation was 62.4 cc and 4.08 cm respectively. Overall tumor growth was 24 cc/year by volume or .86 cm/year diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Given the stage migration of incidentally detected renal masses, the natural history of these tumors remains incomplete. Overall tumor growth in selected populations appear to be slow even in those diagnosed with larger masses. These data may be useful in counseling patients and directing further trials on conservative therapy for renal cell carcinoma.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".