MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297141334 · doi:10.1089/end.2022.0248

Detailed Description of the Karolinska Technique for Intracorporeal Studer Neobladder Reconstruction

2022· article· en· W4297141334 on OpenAlexaff
Étienne Lavallée, John P. Sfakianos, Reza Mehrazin, Peter Wiklund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgical proceduresUrinary diversionSurgeryMedical physicsGeneral surgeryCystectomyBladder cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last two decades, surgical techniques for intracorporeal urinary diversion have been developed with the aim of reducing surgical morbidity. Although increasing constantly, the numbers of urologists offering intracorporeal neobladder reconstruction remain limited due to the complex nature of the procedure. In this article, we aim to provide a detailed description of the surgical technique we currently use at our institution. This technique was initially developed and perfected at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden starting in 2003. It is a reproducible surgical approach with standardized and well-defined surgical steps. We give a detailed description of the surgical steps and provide tips and tricks to address specific situations and to increase efficiency. We also review the indications, the preoperative considerations, equipment necessary, postoperative considerations, and clinical outcomes for this procedure. Finally, we provide an accompanying didactic surgical video. We believe that this standardized approach can be learned and reproduced safely by motivated robotic surgeons.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.013

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207