Routine pathological evaluation of tissue from inguinal hernias in children is unnecessary.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Because unexpected disease is rare in a child's inguinal hernia sac we decided to investigate the cost of routine pathological evaluation of inguinal hernial sacs in children and the incidence of clinically significant pathological findings. METHODS: We searched the health records at the University Hospital, Saskatoon, for patients under 20 years of age who had inguinal hernia repair between 1988 and 1997. For records noting pathology findings of duct-like structures, the operative reports and histology slides were reviewed. Specimens were immunostained for muscle-specific actin. The cost of pathological evaluation was estimated using a provincial physician-billing schedule. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 488 inguinal hernia repairs in 371 patients under 20 years of age. Of these, 456 (93.4%) specimens were evaluated microscopically. There were 4 (0.88%) cases with unexpected findings diagnosed as epididymis at a cost of Can dollar 6988/case. CONCLUSION: The routine histologic evaluation of inguinal hernia sacs in children is an unnecessary expense and should be reserved for select cases at the discretion of the surgeon.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".