Role of persistent processus vaginalis in hydroceles found in a tropical population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lymphatic obstruction by Wuchereria bancrofti is thought to be the mechanism for development of tropical hydrocele in men and for elephantiasis, mostly in women. Hydrocele prevalence is used to determine the effectiveness of para site eradication programs. METHODS: We maintained a prospective log of operations performed at 1 Canadian Field Hospital during its relief mission to Léogâne, Haiti. Information regarding duration of symptoms, type of previous surgery (if any), surgical approach, associated inguinal hernia and volume and appearance of hydrocele fluid in patients with tropical hydroceles were recorded. RESULTS: From January to March 2010, 4922 patients were seen, none of whom had elephantiasis. Of the 64 patients who collectively underwent 69 inguino-scrotal procedures, 5 patients had inguinal hernia repair several years after hydrocele excision via the scrotum, 19 patients with bilateral hydroceles underwent a scrotum-only approach, and 45 patients had an inguinal approach (33 unilateral and 12 bilateral) to repair 57 hydroceles. A patent processus vaginalis was present in 50 of 57 (88%) hydroceles where the groin was explored. CONCLUSION: Hydroceles remain common in Léogâne despite successful eradication of filariasis with mass drug administration using diethylcarbamazine-fortified cooking salt. Persistent patent processus vaginalis is a more likely cause than persistent filariasis. There is probably little difference between hydrocele in developed countries and tropical hydrocele other than neglect. Hydrocele prevalence is not a measure of the effectiveness of parasite eradication programs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".