Robot-assisted retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy without hilar occlusion VS classic robot-assisted retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To discuss the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy via retroperitoneal approach and provide data for evidence based medicine in the surgical treatment of renal tumor.The clinical data was documented and compared between robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy with and without hilar occlusion (clamp group and off-clamp group) performed between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017.Six-months post-operative renal function was superior in the off-clamp group compared with clamp group, while long-term results remained to be elucidated. No significant difference in post-operative hospital stay was found between the 2 groups. Estimated blood loss in off-clamp group was significantly higher than clamp group, while no significant difference was found in transfusion rate.Off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy via retroperitoneal approach is a safe and effective technique for the removal of renal tumor while the indication of surgery is strictly limited to small (<4 cm) and exophytic renal tumor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".