An unusual course after an injection of industrial silicone for penile augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 48-year-old male patient had an injection of industrial silicone under the penile skin for augmentation by non-medical practitioners a week before. There was complete necrosis of the dorsal part of the penile skin and soft tissue. In a penile magnetic resonance image, big masses of silicone under the penile skin were found and a part of the silicone was partially exposed. Debridement of the necrotic tissue was done. As the right side of the tunica albuginea was thin-walled, a silicone-induced infection developed. Because of this, the wet dressing was done daily without closing the wound for the next 23 days. Finally, both scrotal skins were drawn and sutured to the dorsal glandular skin after the total penile skin was completely removed and sutured with T-style anastomosis. The ventral flap was anastomosed to the ventral glandular skin with the end-to-end technique with inverted V incision at 1 cm proximal from the sutured margin. Flaps survived completely without skin necrosis or dehiscence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".