Factors associated with the number and size of renal angiomyolipomas in sporadic angiomyolipoma (sAML): a study of adult patients with sAML managed in a Dutch tertiary referral center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the patient characteristics, treatments, disease monitoring, and kidney function of patients with sporadic angiomyolipoma (sAML), stratified by the number and size of renal angiomyolipomas (AMLs). METHODS: Single-center retrospective analysis of patients with sAML treated from 1990 to 2015 in a dedicated clinic for inheritable tumor syndromes in a tertiary referral center from the Netherlands. Patients' first AML assessment at the clinic was defined as the index date. Patient characteristics were measured at the index date. Treatments, disease monitoring, and kidney function were measured post-index date. RESULTS: The study sample included 53 patients followed for a total of 184.6 patient-years. At the index date, the largest AML was ≥ 3.5 cm for 26 patients and < 3.5 cm for 27 patients (including six patients with five or more AMLs of < 3.5 cm). As compared to patients with AMLs < 3.5 cm, patients with largest AML ≥ 3.5 cm had higher frequency of pre-index bleeding episodes (31 vs. 4%), pre-index hypertension (35 vs. 15%), post-index nephrectomy (19 vs. 4%), post-index embolization (8 vs. 0%), and post-index renal scans (1.14 vs. 0.74 scans/year). Kidney impairment was especially pronounced in young adults with AML ≥ 3.5 cm. On average, patients with sAML developed chronic kidney disease stage two earlier than the general Dutch population (age 42 vs. 55 years), but later than the patients with tuberous sclerosis complex (35 years). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sAML, especially those with larger AMLs, have high disease burden.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".