The contemporary role of lymph node dissection in the management of renal cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The appropriate role of lymph node dissection (LND) in the management of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is still a matter of debate. There is ample evidence that LND is the most accurate modality for staging the regional lymph nodes (LNs), which may harbor metastatic disease in greater than one-third of patients with high-risk RCC. The presence of LN metastases is an independent negative prognostic factor in this disease and accurate determination of LN status not only helps with patient counselling regarding prognosis and tailoring of postoperative surveillance schedules, but it also identifies patients at high risk of systemic disease recurrence who may qualify for clinical trials of adjuvant systemic therapies. Meanwhile, the therapeutic value of LND has been brought into question by a randomized trial (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; EORTC 30881) that showed no difference in progression-free or overall survival between patients who were treated with radical nephrectomy (RN) and LND and those treated with RN alone. Given that most patients enrolled in this trial had small renal masses and therefore were at low risk for LN metastases, the question of whether patients with high-risk tumors derive a therapeutic benefit from a standardized, extended LND remains unanswered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".