MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160110911 · doi:10.1007/s00261-021-03097-6

Prostate minimally invasive procedures: complications and normal vs. abnormal findings on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)

2021· review· en· W3160110911 on OpenAlexaff
Thanh‐Lan Bui, Justin Glavis‐Bloom, Chantal Chahine, Raj Mehta, Taylor Wolfe, Param Bhatter, Mark Rupasinghe, Joseph M. Carbone, Masoom A. Haider, Francesco Giganti, Simone Giona, Aytekin Oto, Grace Lee, Roozbeh Houshyar

Bibliographic record

VenueAbdominal Radiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstateProstate cancerMagnetic resonance imagingCryotherapyProstatectomyRadiologyCryoablationAblationProstatic DiseasesCryosurgeryHyperplasiaUrologyCancerPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minimally invasive alternatives to traditional prostate surgery are increasingly utilized to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia and localized prostate cancer in select patients. Advantages of these treatments over prostatectomy include lower risk of complication, shorter length of hospital stay, and a more favorable safety profile. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has become a widely accepted imaging modality for evaluation of the prostate gland and provides both anatomical and functional information. As prostate mpMRI and minimally invasive prostate procedure volumes increase, it is important for radiologists to be familiar with normal post-procedure imaging findings and potential complications. This paper reviews the indications, procedural concepts, common post-procedure imaging findings, and potential complications of prostatic artery embolization, prostatic urethral lift, irreversible electroporation, photodynamic therapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound, focal cryotherapy, and focal laser ablation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbdominal RadiologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207