Predicting Peri-Operative Outcomes in Patients Treated with Percutaneous Thermal Ablation for Small Renal Masses: The SuNS Nephrometry Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to develop a new, simple, and ablation-specific nephrometry score to predict peri-operative outcomes and to compare its predictive accuracy to PADUA and RENAL scores. Overall, 418 patients were treated with percutaneous thermal ablation (microwave and radiofrequency) between 2008 and 2021. The outcome of interest was trifecta status (achieved vs. not achieved): incomplete ablation or Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications or postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease ≥ 30%. First, we validated the discrimination ability of the PADUA and RENAL scoring systems. Second, we created and internally validated a novel scoring (SuNS) system, according to multivariable logistic regression models. The predictive accuracy of the model was tested in terms of discrimination and calibration. Overall, 89 (21%) patients did not achieve trifecta. PADUA and RENAL scores showed poor ability to predict trifecta status (c-indexes 0.60 [0.53-0.67] and 0.62 [0.55-0.69], respectively). We, therefore, developed the SuNS model (c-index: 0.74 [0.67-0.79]) based on: (1) contact surface area; (2) nearness to renal sinus or urinary collecting system; (3) tumour diameter. Three complexity classes were created: low (3-4 points; 11% of no trifecta) vs. moderate (5-6 points; 30% of no trifecta) vs. high (7-8 points; 65% of no trifecta) complexity. Limitations include the retrospective and single-institution nature of the study. In conclusion, we developed an immediate, simple, and reproducible ablation-specific nephrometry score (SuNS) that outperformed PADUA and RENAL nephrometry scores in predicting peri-operative outcomes. External validation is required before daily practice implementation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".