MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892233176 · doi:10.1093/ajcp/aqy107

Quality and Quantity in Kidney Cancer Surgery

2018· article· en· W2892233176 on OpenAlexaff
Deepak Pruthi, Sacha Oomah, Vivian Lu, Tommy Ting, Corey Knickle, Michael A. Liss, Ian W. Gibson, Iain D. C. Kirkpatrick, Thomas McGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of ManitobaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKidney cancerCancer surgeryMedicineQuality (philosophy)CancerIntensive care medicineGeneral surgerySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To model renal function 2 years following radical nephrectomy with quantitative analyses using clinical, histopathologic, and renal composite cortical volumes (CCV). Methods: This retrospective study involved an assessment of the nonneoplastic kidney tissue by three blinded nephropathologists using modified Banff 1997 criteria for renal allograft pathology. Volumetric image acquisition was obtained by three independent radiologists using preoperative imaging. A 2-year estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) calculator was created. Results: Among the 126 patients, median age was 60 years; median CCV, 398.1 cm3; preoperative eGFR, 77 mL/min/1.73 m2; and 2-year postoperative eGFR, 54 mL/min/1.73 m2. Of the subjects, 64% had hypertension, 26% diabetes, and 37% were smokers. Increasing age, glomerulopathy/sclerosis, tubulointerstitial scarring, and arteriosclerosis were statistically significantly and adversely associated with eGFR. Conversely, increasing CCV was associated with a higher eGFR. Conclusions: Quantitative analysis of the nephrectomized kidney in conjunction with patient age can accurately predict renal function at 2 years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207