MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Renal autotransplantation

2004· review· en· W3190223458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chad Wotkowicz, John A. Libertino

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUreteral procedures and complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAutotransplantationProstatectomyUrologyGeneral surgeryProstate cancerSurgeryTransplantationInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Department of Urology in the Lahey Clinic has a considerable reputation in the treatment of renovascular conditions, and this month they have produced a review of renal autotransplantation. This interesting, if infrequently used, surgical technique is potentially useful to urologists in several different situations. Intermittent androgen suppression was introduced based on solid laboratory evidence, and has been accepted by many as a way of treating advanced prostate cancer. The authors from Vancouver, from the department where it was introduced, present a review on its use. Laser prostatectomy has gone through interesting developments since it was introduced some years ago. Many techniques and types of laser have come and gone, after initial excitement, but some have lasted the course. The author from New York, who has extensive experience in this area, has written an interesting review on the subject. The work of the Department of Urology in Bern relating to ileal orthotopic bladder substitution is well known, and their technique has been presented in last month's Surgery Illustrated Section in this Journal. Here they present a review of the postoperative management of such patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations47
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicUreteral procedures and complicationsFrench-language works237,207