Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer: Guideline of Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is a rare disease with a potentially dismal prognosis. We systematically compared international guidelines on UTUC to analyze similitudes and differences among them. METHODS: We conducted a search on MEDLINE/PubMed for guidelines related to UTUC from 2010 to the present. In addition, we manually explored the websites of urological and oncological societies and journals to identify pertinent guidelines. We also assessed recommendations from the International Bladder Cancer Network, the Canadian Urological Association, the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the International Consultation on Bladder Cancer, considering their expertise and experience in the field. RESULTS: Among all the sources, only the American Urologist Association (AUA), European Association of Urology (EAU), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines specifically report data on diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of UTUC. Current analysis reveals several differences between all three sources on diagnostic work-up, patient management, and follow-up. Among all, AUA and EAU guidelines show more detailed indications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the growing incidence of UTUC, only AUA, EAU, and NCCN guidelines deal with this cancer. Our research depicted high variability in reporting recommendations and opinions. In this regard, we encourage further higher-quality research to gain evidence creating higher grade consensus between guidelines.
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 | 0.010 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".