MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743105156 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.4327

Ex-vivo ureteroscopy of deceased donor kidneys

2017· article· en· W2743105156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G. Luke Machen, Preston A. Milburn, Patrick S. Lowry, Jacqueline A. Lappin, Debra K. Doherty, Marawan M. El Tayeb

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUreteroscopyMedicineEx vivoCadaveric spasmSurgeryTransplantationEndoscopyKidney transplantationUrologyUreterIn vivo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: When encountered, the ideal management of lithiasis in deceased donor kidneys is not well-defined. With advances in endourological techniques, minimally invasive treatments are becoming an increasingly viable option. We set out to describe our experience performing ex-vivo ureteroscopy on cadaveric donor kidneys, including one in which the procedure was completed on-pump. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was undertaken to identify patients who had undergone ex-vivo ureteroscopy prior to cadaveric renal transplant. Four patients were identified, including one in which the procedure was done with the kidney remaining on-pump. The surgical technique and subsequent data were reviewed. RESULTS: Ex-vivo ureteroscopy was successfully completed in all four instances without intraoperative complication. All kidneys were endoscopically stone-free. Creatinine nadirs ranged from 0.8-1.4. All four patients remained stone-free at a mean followup of 13 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our series provides further evidence as to the safety and efficacy of ex-vivo ureteroscopy prior to transplantation in cadaveric renal transplants and describes a novel technique in the form of on-pump ex-vivo ureteroscopy.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207