Significance of atypical urinary cytology in the evaluation of patients with end‐stage renal disease for kidney transplantation – a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine what percentage of renal transplant candidates have atypical urinary cytology, what proportion have urothelial carcinoma and whether cystoscopy is necessary with atypical cytology. All end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients (703) presenting for renal transplantation at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Individuals producing sufficient urine were screened with urine cytology and those with atypical cytology or risk factors for bladder cancer underwent cystoscopy. Four hundred and thirty patients had available urinary cytology and, of these, 151 (35%) had atypical cytology. Of patients with atypical cytology, three were identified to have urothelial carcinoma. However, three additional patients with urothelial carcinoma did not present with atypical cytology. In total, 6 of 703 (0.85%) patients had bladder cancer. All were treated with transurethral resection and eventually underwent renal transplant. One patient has had disease progression post-transplant to distant metastases. This is the largest study to date evaluating the incidence of urothelial carcinoma in ESRD patients presenting for transplant workup. We found the incidence of bladder cancer to be higher than in the general Canadian population, however, most lesions were low grade. We found atypical cytology in transplant candidates to be a poor predictor for these low-grade lesions and do not recommend routine cystoscopy for atypical cytology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".