Active Surveillance of Renal Masses: The Role of Radiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active surveillance of renal masses, which includes serial imaging with the possibility of delayed treatment, has emerged as a viable alternative to immediate therapeutic intervention in selected patients. Active surveillance is supported by evidence that many benign masses are resected unnecessarily, and treatment of small cancers has not substantially reduced cancer-specific mortality. These data are a call to radiologists to improve the diagnosis of benign renal masses and differentiate cancers that are biologically aggressive (prompting treatment) from those that are indolent (allowing treatment deferral). Current evidence suggests that active surveillance results in comparable cancer-specific survival with a low risk of developing metastasis. Radiology is central in this. Imaging is used at the outset to estimate the probability of malignancy and degree of aggressiveness in malignant masses and to follow up masses for growth and morphologic change. Percutaneous biopsy is used to provide a more definitive histologic diagnosis and to guide treatment decisions, including whether active surveillance is appropriate. Emerging applications that may improve imaging assessment of renal masses include standardized assessment of cystic and solid masses and radiomic analysis. This article reviews the current and future role of radiology in the care of patients with renal masses undergoing active surveillance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".