MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162807616 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.7143

Single-institution retrospective review of elective and emergency embolization of renal angiomyolipoma

2021· article· en· W3162807616 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Chapman, Matt Tyson, Brendan Buckley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberous Sclerosis Complex Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmbolizationRadiologyAngiomyolipomaMagnetic resonance imagingSurgerySingle CenterNephrectomyArterial EmbolizationKidneyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the size reduction and complications after transcatheter embolization of renal angiomyolipomas (AMLs). METHODS: Cases from a single tertiary center were analyzed retrospectively. A blinded radiologist provided measurements of AMLs using a combination of ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Electronic clinical notes, radiographic imaging, and laboratory data were reviewed. RESULTS: , and coils. The median diameter size of AMLs was 8.6 cm pre-procedure and 6.0 cm post-procedure. The median volume of AMLs was 200 cc pre-procedure and 67 cc post-procedure, with a median reduction in volume of 55%. One case (4.8%) had a re-embolization and three cases (14.3%) proceeded with surgical management of the AML. No cases re-presented with bleeding. Post-embolization syndrome is common. Renal arterial dissection and renal abscess are infrequent complications (9% and 4.5%, respectively). There was no treatment-based mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Embolization for renal AMLs is an established, safe, and effective method of treatment and our series further supports that. Determining when to intervene and how long to follow up patients is an issue that has not been well-described; more research needs to be done in this area.

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)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicTuberous Sclerosis Complex ResearchFrench-language works237,207