MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378909279 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8389

2023 UPDATE – Canadian Urological Association guideline: Management of cystic renal lesions

2023· article· en· W4378909279 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Patrick O. Richard, Philippe D. Violette, Bimal Bhindi, Rodney H. Breau, Matthieu Gratton, Michael A.S. Jewett, Anil Kapoor, Frédéric Pouliot, Michael Leveridge, Alan So, Tom F. Whelan, Ricardo Rendon, Simon Tanguay, Antonio Finelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of CalgaryKingston General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of TorontoUniversité LavalMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaQueen's UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineAssociation (psychology)UrologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePathologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current guideline summarizes the state-of-the-art knowledge on the management of cystic renal lesions by updating the 2017 Canadian Urological Association (CUA) guideline on the topic.To do so, we updated our search strategy on June 18, 2022, and have identified 38 relevant articles, which led to a revision of the content of the original publication.The panel formulated several recommendations using the GRADE evidence to decision framework -a methodological improvement compared to the previous iteration.Three key recommendation changes were made compared to the previous iteration:1. Patients with a renal cyst should be classified as per the v2019 Bosniak classification.2. For Bosniak III or IV cyst measuring ≤2 cm, active surveillance is now suggested as the preferred strategy.3.For Bosniak III or IV cyst measuring 2-4 cm, active surveillance or surgery are suggested as equal options.The panel made these changes in an attempt to decrease the burden of care for patients, but also acknowledges the low-quality evidence supporting these changes.Consequently, we emphasize the need for shared decision-making.Patients opting for nonsurgical strategies should be made aware of the higher uncertainty surrounding the data supporting their treatment of choice.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.009

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207