MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014567757 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1821

Penile injuries: A 10-year experience

2014· review· en· W2014567757 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S.V. Krishna Reddy, Ahammad Basha Shaik, Srinivas Rao K

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryPenile fractureAmputationPenis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report our 10-year experience with penile injuries. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 156 cases of male external genitalia injuries between May 2002 and December 2012. Of these, only 26 patients presented without urethral injuries and were included in this study. Patients were divided into 4 groups: Group 1 (n = 12) with patients with penile fractures injuries; Group 2 (n = 5) with patients with penile amputation injuries; Group 3 (n = 2) with patients with penile penetrating injuries; and Group 4 (n = 7) with patients with penile soft tissue injuries. Grading of injury was done using the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST)-Organ injury scale of penile injury. Penile injuries without urethral injuries are urological emergencies which require immediate attention.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207