MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of modified one‐ and two‐layer microsurgical vasovasostomy

2000· article· en· W1569044741 on OpenAlexaff
M. Fischer, John Grantmyre

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMale Reproductive Health Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasovasostomyVasectomy reversalMedicineSurgeryVasectomyPopulationResearch methodologyFamily planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of a modified one-layer and two-layer vasovasotomy (VV) in two groups of similar men undergoing vasectomy reversal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The charts and surgical records of all surgical procedures performed on men undergoing a modified one- or two-layer VV between June 1992 and July 1994 were retrospectively reviewed. A successful outcome (patency) was defined as sperm present at follow-up (mean follow-up 8 weeks). A modified one-layer VV was used in 17 men (group 1) and a two-layer VV in 23 (group 2). RESULTS: Sperm were present in both groups if surgery was undertaken after vasal obstruction lasting < 36 months. The modified one- and two-layer VV had equal patency (88% and 90%, respectively) when undertaken after an obstructed interval of 36-96 months; outcomes were poorer if surgery was performed after > 96 months. The mean operative duration was 96 min for a modified one-layer VV and 167 min for the two-layer VV. CONCLUSIONS: The simpler and faster modified one-layer VV provides sufficient accuracy for successful vasectomy reversal in most cases. For most patients, both procedures have equivalent patency.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations49
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicMale Reproductive Health StudiesFrench-language works237,207