Partial vs. radical nephrectomy and the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular, and nephrological outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The study's objective was to examine the effects of renal-preservation surgery on long-term mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal-related outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all partial (n=575) and radical nephrectomies (n=882) for tumors ≤7 cm in diameter between 2002 and 2010 across three academic centers in Ontario, Canada. We linked records from provincial databases to assess patient characteristics and outcomes (median seven years' followup using retrospective data). A weighted propensity score was used to reduce confounding. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization with major cardiovascular events, non-cancer related mortality, kidney cancer-related mortality, and dialysis. RESULTS: in the radical group. Partial nephrectomy was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first five years after surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.66), which did not extend beyond five years (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68-1.49). Kidney cancer-related mortality was lower in the partial compared to the radical group for the first four years after surgery (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.72). There were no significant differences between the groups for cardiovascular outcomes or non-cancer related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and cancer-specific survival was reduced in radical nephrectomy patients. However, despite reduced renal function in the radical nephrectomy group, non-cancer-related death, cardiovascular events, and dialysis were not significantly different between groups. Long-term benefits of partial nephrectomy may be less than previously believed.
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 | 0.001 | 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".