Retroperitoneal fibrosis: retrospective descriptive study on clinical features and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Retroperitoneal fibrosis (RPF) is a rare condition characterized by the presence of inflammatory and fibrous retroperitoneal tissue that often encases the ureters or abdominal organs. This study describes the clinical characteristics, diagnostic methods, and treatments and their effects on renal function. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with RPF at Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital. RESULTS: We identified 17 patients with RPF between 1998 and 2013. Eight patients were females (47%), and the mean age was 62±18 years. Eleven patients were idiopathic. Back pain was the most common symptom. All diagnoses were made based on the finding of a retroperitoneal mass on the computed tomography scan. Three patients had histological diagnosis of RPF and seven patients had unspecific changes on their biopsy. Twelve patients needed double-J stents, three patients had a temporary percutaneous nephrostomy, two patients had to have a nephrectomy for refractory ureteral obstruction, and one patient required hemodialysis. Ten patients with idiopathic RPF received medical treatment. In the treated group, only two patients had complete remission of the disease and five patients had improvement of their lesions. There were no deteriorations and only one relapse. Seven patients did not receive any treatment; two of them achieved complete remission, one of them deteriorated, and two of them had no changes. CONCLUSION: Most of our cases of RPF were idiopathic. Almost all treated patients received prednisone and seemed to respond, at least partially. There was a lot of heterogeneity in patient management, which makes it difficult to compare treatment effects. However, treated patients seemed to have more favorable outcomes than those who were not.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".