The Emerging Role of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Primary Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is an emerging treatment option for primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Objective: To systematically review the literature on SABR for primary RCC and perform a meta-analysis evaluating local control (LC), toxicity, and renal function. Evidence acquisition: A PROSPERO-registered (#115573), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-based systematic review of the literature was conducted . Studies of SABR targeting primary RCC tumors were included, while those targeting only metastases were excluded. The primary outcome was LC defined as tumor size reduction and/or absence of local progression. Secondary outcomes included toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) and renal function (change in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]). Weighted random-effect meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird method were conducted for primary and secondary outcomes. The I 2 statistic and Cochran's Q test were used to assess heterogeneity. Evidence synthesis: From 2386 PubMed entries and 924 meeting abstracts, 26 studies were identified (11 prospective trials), including 383 tumors in 372 patients, most of whom were deemed inoperable. Weighted averages (ranges) of median follow-up, median age, and mean tumor size were 28.0 (5.8-79.2) mo, 70.4 (62-83) yr, and 4.6 (2.3-9.5) cm, respectively. RCC histology was confirmed in 78.9% of patients who
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| 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 it