MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3187870380 · doi:10.2196/19750

Short-Term and Long-Term Renal Outcomes in Patients With Obesity After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Partial Nephrectomy for the Treatment of Renal Cancer: Retrospective Study

2021· article· en· W3187870380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brittany Flippo, Bradley R. Stone, Shelbie Stahr, Mahmoud Khalil, Rodney Davis, Mohamed Kamel, Manisha Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrectomyRenal functionCreatinineRenal cell carcinomaRetrospective cohort studyOdds ratioSurgeryObesityLogistic regressionMedical recordUrologyInternal medicineKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Obesity is significantly associated with renal cell carcinoma. Surgery is the preferred treatment for demarcated lesions of renal cell carcinoma; however, obesity increases the complexity of surgical outcomes. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are preferred over open partial nephrectomy (OPN), but controversy remains regarding the most efficacious technique in patients with obesity. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) or OPN better preserves renal function and investigate short- and long-term renal outcomes in patients with obesity undergoing a partial nephrectomy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 242 adult patients aged ≥18 years who underwent MIPN or OPN between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016, at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Using creatinine as a measure of kidney function, patients' preoperative levels were compared with their postoperative levels in 2-time frames: short (3-6 months postsurgery) or long (>6 months). The primary outcome was the change in creatinine values from preoperative to >6 months postoperatively in patients with obesity. Secondary outcomes included the change in creatinine values from preoperative to 3 to 6 months postoperatively in patients with obesity who underwent MIPN versus OPN. We also analyzed the creatinine values of nonobese patients (BMI <30) who underwent partial nephrectomy using the same time frames. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate crude and multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI to observe associations between surgery type and changes in creatinine values from while stratifying for obesity. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients were included in the study, of whom 75 were obese and 65 were nonobese. At >6 months after MIPN (n=20), the odds of patients with obesity having a decrease or no change in creatinine values was 1.24 times higher than those who had OPN (n=13; OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.299-6.729; P=.80). At 3 to 6 months after MIPN (n=27), the odds were 0.62 times lower than those after OPN (n=17; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.140-2.753; P=.56). In the nonobese group, at 3 to 6 months after undergoing minimally invasive surgery (n=18), the odds of having a decrease or no change in creatinine values was 4.86 times higher than those who had open surgery (n=21; OR 4.86, 95% CI 1.085-21.809; P=.04). At more than 6 months after MIPN (n=14), the odds were 4.13 times higher than those after OPN (n=11; OR 4.13, 95% CI 0.579-29.485; P=.16). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a nonstatistically significant preservation of renal function in patients with obesity who underwent OPN at 3 to 6 months postoperatively. Conversely, after 6 months, the same was true for MIPN, indicating the long-term benefit of MIPN. In the nonobese group, MIPN was favored over OPN.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→