Anatomic variants associated with newborn circumcision complications.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Circumcision is one of the commonly performed procedures on males in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The association of minor anatomic variations of the newborn genitalia in patients with minor circumcision complications has not been previously examined. In this study, we looked for an association between subtle genital anatomic variations and newborn circumcision complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over an 18-month period, children presenting for circumcision revision were examined for minor variations in genital anatomy. Children referred for other urological problems during the same period comprised the control group. The same physician evaluated all of the children. RESULTS: During this period, 68 children were evaluated for possible circumcision complications. A confirmed complication was present in 57 infants. Patients with a minor circumcision complication were found to have a 9-fold higher incidence of a prominent suprapubic fat pad, penoscrotal webbing, or being a premature infant as compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Subtle anatomic variations may be associated with a higher incidence of circumcision complications. Physicians performing newborn circumcisions should thoroughly examine the genitalia for these anatomic variations prior to the procedure in order to reduce potential complications.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".