Split Renal Function Is Fundamentally Important for Predicting Functional Recovery After Radical Nephrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While partial nephrectomy (PN) is generally preferred for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), radical nephrectomy (RN) is occasionally required. A new-baseline glomerular filtration rate (NBGFR) >45 ml/min/1.73 m2 after kidney cancer surgery is associated with strong survival outcomes. If NBGFR after RN will be above this threshold and the tumor has increased oncologic potential, RN may be a relevant consideration. Predicting NBGFR, defined as the GFR at 3–12 mo after RN, has been challenging owing to omission of two important parameters: split renal function (SRF) and renal function compensation (RFC). Our objective was to evaluate a simple SRF-based model in comparison to five published non–SRF-based models using data from a retrospective cohort of 445 RN patients. SRF was obtained via readily available semiautomated software (FUJIFILM Medical Systems) that provides differential parenchymal volume analysis on the basis of preoperative imaging. Our conceptually simple and clinically implementable SRF-based model more accurately predicts NBGFR after RN than five published non–SRF-based models (all p < 0.01). The SRF-based model also improved prediction of the clinically relevant threshold of NBGFR >45 ml/min/1.73 m2 (all p < 0.05). We validated a novel approach for more accurate prediction of kidney function after removal of one kidney. Our approach can be used in clinical and practice and will help in making decisions on full or partial removal of a kidney for kidney cancer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".