Late Kidney Effects of Nephron-Sparing vs Radical Nephrectomy for Wilms Tumor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compare differences in long-term kidney function between patients undergoing either radical nephrectomy (RN) or nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) in unilateral and bilateral Wilms tumor (WT), respectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed in September 2020. Comparative studies were evaluated according to Cochrane collaboration recommendations. Assessed long-term (>1-year postoperative) outcomes included chronic kidney disease, hypertension and glomerular filtration rate, among others. Odds ratio and mean difference with 95% confidence interval were extrapolated from available data for quantitative synthesis. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed according to study design and techniques. The systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020205378). RESULTS: A total of 23 studies describing 293 cases of unilateral WT and 386 cases of bilateral WT were included in the qualitative synthesis. Overall effect estimates demonstrate that patients undergoing RN have significantly increased odds of developing abnormal kidney function (OR 4.29, 95% CI 1.02, 18.00) and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate at long-term followup (mean difference -8.99, 95% CI -16.40, -1.58) compared to those undergoing NSS. In bilateral WT, patients undergoing RN with contralateral NSS have higher odds of developing abnormal kidney function (OR 3.82, 95% CI 1.76, 8.33) and hypertension (OR 5.81, 95% CI 1.31, 25.68) compared to bilateral NSS. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is low quality but suggests that NSS for unilateral and bilateral WT may be associated with better kidney function or blood pressure at late followup. Further research to investigate sources of heterogeneity is recommended.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".