MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042243144 · doi:10.1159/000083420

Normative Data of Penile Length for Term Chinese Newborns

2005· article· en· W2042243144 on OpenAlexaff
Tai Fai Fok, Kam‐Lun Ellis Hon, Hung‐Kwan So, Eric Wong, P.C. Ng, Anne B. Chang, Joseph T. F. Lau, C.B. Chow, W.H. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueNeonatology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational ageAmbiguous genitaliaPenisMicropenisGestationGlansGlans penisBirth weightObstetricsHypospadiasSurgeryPregnancyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Careful examination and assessment of penile length in the newborn is important because micropenis is associated with hypothalamic disorders. This prospective cross-sectional study was designed to establish the norm of penile length for term Hong Kong Chinese newborns. 4,628 full-term healthy male newborns were enrolled in the study. Penile length was measured from pubic ramus to the tip of the glans penis by placing the end of a straight edge ruler against the pubic ramus. A gestation-associated graph of 3rd, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 97th centiles for the penile length was created. The penile length was significantly correlated with gestational age, birth weight and body length. When compared with published data for other populations, Hong Kong newborns have significantly shorter penile length. The norm of the penile length is useful in diagnostic and therapeutics for the ethnic Chinese male newborns.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations44
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeonatologySame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207