MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005196664 · doi:10.1055/s-0039-3402486

Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder in Pediatric Patients: Where Do We Stand?

2020· article· en· W3005196664 on OpenAlexaff
Jaime Pérez, Julián Chavarriaga, Paula Andrea Peña, Gustavo Ramos, Lynda Torres Castellanos, Alejandra Bravo, Paola Andrea Orrego, Nicolás Fernández

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Urología Colombiana / Colombian Urology Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransitional cell carcinomaEtiologyNatural historyPresentation (obstetrics)PopulationUltrasonographyUrinary bladderCarcinomaMacroscopic hematuriaSurgeryPathologyInternal medicineBladder cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder (TCCB) is uncommon in the pediatric population, and its etiology, natural history and epigenetics remain poorly understood. We aim to describe six cases of TCCB in pediatric patients and discuss the state of the art in the management and follow-up of the patients with this uncommon early presentation. Methods The clinicopathological data of 6 patients with TCCB who underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) were obtained from our institutional database. The patient data were collected retrospectively. A review of the literature was performed, and the most relevant and trending data were analyzed. Results A total of 6 patients (4 female, 2 male) were treated at our institution between 2004 and 2019. The mean age of the sample was 12 years, and the presenting symptoms were macroscopic hematuria (3 cases), suprapubic pain (2 cases), and 1 case was an incidental finding during pelvic ultrasonography. The long-term follow-up (median follow-up of 61 months) did not reveal recurrence. Conclusion Transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder rarely presents in the pediatric population. Genetic and epigenetic anomalies have been proposed as causes, as well as carcinogenic exposure. The reported cases tend to have a good prognosis, and most are non-invasive at the diagnosis. Follow-up protocols are still lacking, as well as molecular insights on tumor development and prognostic markers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Urología Colombiana / Colombian Urology JournalSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207