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

Varicoceles: The Diagnostic Dilemma

2008· review· en· W1963714796 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
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