A modified surgical procedure for concealed penis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We described a modified surgical procedure for repairing a concealed penis and compared the efficacy and feasibility of modified repair with traditional repair. METHODS: From March 2003 to December 2012, 96 patients with a concealed penis were recruited to undergo penile repair at our centre. Modified repair and traditional repair were performed respectively on 46 and 50 cases. We compared operative time, intraoperative blood loss, cosmetic result of operative scars, postoperative penile retraction, and complications. RESULTS: All operations were completed successfully without serious complications. The mean operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and cosmetic result of the operative scar between the two surgical methods were similar. However, the postoperative penile retraction rate in patients undergoing modified repair decreased significantly than in the traditional repair. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified surgical procedure is effective and feasible for a concealed penis. Although extra procedures were needed for the modified repair, the operative time, intraoperative blood loss and cosmetic result of operative scar between the two procedures were similar. Compared with traditional repair, modified repair has better clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".