MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797407876 · doi:10.4103/ua.ua_66_17

Renal cell carcinoma in renal allograft: Case series and review of literature

2018· article· en· W2797407876 on OpenAlexaff
Shahid Lambe, Gaurav Vasisth, Anil Kapoor, Kevin Piercey

Bibliographic record

VenueUrology Annals · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal cell carcinomaDialysisPerioperativeSurgeryTransplantationRenal functionUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in transplanted kidneys has been reported sporadically with incidence of about 0.5%. There are currently no standard guidelines on the management of allograft RCC in renal transplant recipients. Our objective was to study effectiveness of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) for allograft RCC. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with RCC in renal allografts managed with NSS in our institution from January 2000 to December 2015. Patient demographics, interval between transplant and RCC diagnosis, operative parameters, perioperative complications, final pathology, and renal function were evaluated. Three females underwent successful NSS for allograft RCC. Cause of end-stage renal disease was IgA nephropathy in all; mean time between renal transplant and diagnosis of RCC was 23 years. We were able to stay extraperitoneal in all the cases. In the final pathology, two had papillary and one had clear cell RCC. One patient developed pyelocutaneous fistula which was managed by stenting. Long-term functional outcomes of NSS are excellent; none of our patients is dialysis dependent.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrology AnnalsSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207