MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963714796 · doi:10.2164/jandrol.107.003467

Varicoceles: The Diagnostic Dilemma

2008· review· en· W1963714796 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Lee, Saleh Binsaleh, Kirk Lo, Keith Jarvi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Andrology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaricoceleHydroceleScrotumMedicinePhysical examinationRadiologyVenographyUltrasoundSurgeryInfertilityThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical examination of the scrotum remains the most commonly used technique to diagnose varicoceles. However, scrotal anatomy (eg, thick scrotum, scarring, hydrocele) in some men may make physical examination alone unreliable. In these situations, imaging (eg, ultrasound, Doppler imaging, venography) may be used to diagnose a varicocele. The dilemma is that there are no widely accepted or used criteria to diagnose a varicocele based on imaging. This paper reviews the different imaging techniques used and the accuracy of each in diagnosing a varicocele.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AndrologySame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207