Adult Male Circumcision Outcomes: Experience in a Developing Country Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We examined male circumcision outcomes among young adults in an African setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were healthy, sexually active, uncircumcised, HIV-seronegative males aged 18-24 years. The main outcomes measured included complications, healing, satisfaction and resumption of activities. RESULTS: Of 1,475 procedures, 26 (1.8%) were associated with 27 adverse events, most commonly wound disruption/delayed healing (0.6%), wound infection (0.4%), and bleeding (0.3%). Adverse events per clinician averaged 3.8 and 2.1% for procedures 1-100 and 101-200, respectively, and <1% for procedures 201-300, 301-400 and >400, respectively (p < 0.001). Participants resumed normal general activities after a median of 1 postoperative day and 93% with regular employment resumed working within 1 week. After 30 days, 99% of participants reported being very satisfied. After 90 days, 65% reported having had sex, 45% reported that their partners had expressed an opinion, 92% of whom were very satisfied with the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Safe and acceptable adult male circumcision services can be delivered in developing country settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".