MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007880821 · doi:10.1111/bjh.12199

How I manage priapism due to sickle cell disease

2013· review· en· W2007880821 on OpenAlexaff
Ade Olujohungbe, Arthur L. Burnett

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Haematology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPriapismMedicineIntensive care medicineErectile dysfunctionDiseaseClinical trialInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Priapism due to sickle cell disease is a common but less well characterized complication of the disorder. It represents a "medical emergency" with the key determinant of outcome being the duration of penile ischaemia and time to detumescence of <4 h associated with a successful treatment outcome. Management can be outpatient-based and consists of pre-emptive strategies for early stuttering attacks based on prior health education of the association between the 2 disorders, non pharmacological management, outpatient penile aspiration and irrigation with or without instillation of alpha and beta adrenergic agonists for acute episodes and secondary prophylaxis to prevent the high rates of recurrences. The evidence to recommend medical prophylaxis is sparse but based on a consensus of experts and small phase 2 or III clinical trials. A clearer understanding of the molecular mechanism(s) involving normal and dysregulated erectile physiology, scavenger haemolysis and nitric oxide pathway paves way for the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in medical prophylaxis of stuttering attacks. These agents will need to be studied in multi-centre randomized phase III trials before they become standard of care. A multidisciplinary team approach is required to enhance "sexual wellness" and prevent erectile dysfunction in this sexually vulnerable group.

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)0.002
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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of HaematologySame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207