Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hernia sac is a common surgical pathology specimen which can occasionally yield unexpected diagnoses. The College of American Pathologists recommends microscopic examination of abdominal hernias, but leaves submission of inguinal hernias for histology to the discretion of the pathologist. To validate this approach at a tertiary care centre, we retrospectively reviewed 1426 hernia sacs derived from inguinal, femoral and abdominal wall hernias. The majority of pathologies noted were known to the clinician, including herniated bowel, lipomas and omentum. A malignancy was noted in three of 800 inguinal hernias and seven of 576 abdominal wall hernias; five of these lesions were not seen on gross examination. Other interesting findings in hernia sacs included appendices, endometriosis, a perivascular epithelioid cell tumour, and pseudomyxoma peritoneii. All hernia sacs should be examined grossly as most pathologies are grossly visible. The decision to submit inguinal hernias for histology may be left to the discretion of the pathologist, but abdominal and femoral hernias should be submitted for histology.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".