Endophytic to total tumour volume ratio: An added variable to patients with T1b/T2 renal tumours undergoing partial nephrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Partial nephrectomy is the standard of care to patients with small renal masses. It is still encouraged to larger tumours whenever feasible. The aim of this study is to look for the endophytic to total tumour volume ratio as an added variable to study the complexity of partial nephrectomy to patients with T1b/ T2 renal tumours. METHODS: Retrospective data collection of patients that had partial nephrectomy for T1b/T2 renal tumours by a single surgeon was done. Radiological re-assessment for the CT images to measure the endophytic to total tumour volume ratio was done. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 63 years. The study included 25 males and 11 females. All cases were managed by open surgery using retroperitoneal transverse lateral lumbotomy and warm ischemia was used in all patients. The mean tumour volume was 74 cc, the mean endophytic tumour volume was 29 cc. The mean percentage of endophytic to total tumour volume was 42%. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy is safe for most of the patients with good performance status, having large renal masses. More complex surgery can be predicted in patients with endophytic to total tumour volume greater than 42%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".