Foreskin management: Survey of Canadian pediatric urologists.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the approaches to foreskin management of pediatric urologists in Canada. DESIGN: An online questionnaire comprising several survey questions and clinical vignettes. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All members of the Pediatric Urologists of Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnoses and management strategies for common foreskin conditions seen in consultation, including how many pediatric urologists perform neonatal circumcisions, patient costs, and the reasons for performing the surgery. RESULTS: Of the 32 members surveyed, 24 (75%) responded. By far most respondents do not perform neonatal circumcisions; however, many perform circumcisions under general anesthesia for religious and cultural purposes. Typically, patient costs for circumcision range from $500 to $1000. Management of asymptomatic physiologic phimosis is very conservative, with surgeons unlikely to intervene. Neither the presence of ballooning of the foreskin during voiding nor the child's age affects physicians' tendency toward conservative management. Balanitis xerotica obliterans was the only scenario in which most respondents believed there was a need to intervene with either topical steroids or circumcision. CONCLUSION: Our data support the hypothesis that pediatric urologists across Canada are very similar in their conservative approach to the management of common foreskin issues. Our goal is to improve the knowledge base among primary care providers and subsequently decrease patient and family anxieties.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".