Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vasectomy is one of the safest and most effective permanent contraceptive methods available. Compared with tubal ligation, which is usually done under general anaesthesia and entails surgery within a woman's peritoneal cavity, vasectomy is safer and men recover more quickly from the procedure. Vasectomies are usually done under local anaesthesia in outpatient settings, and men usually go home within an hour of the surgery. None the less, for various reasons, vasectomy procedures are less common than tubal ligation procedures in most countries. Surgical techniques used for vasectomy vary widely throughout the world. The two main components of vasectomy are isolation of the vas deferens from the scrotum and subsequent vas occlusion. However, more than 30 different combinations of vas occlusion techniques probably exist,1 and poor quality studies, heterogeneous study designs, and conflicting results have made it difficult to determine which are the most effective.2 The most common technique, especially in low resource settings, is suture ligation with excision of a small segment of the vas.3 Few data are available on exact rates of use, but recent observations and interviews with surgeons in Asia suggest that at least 95% of all vasectomies in India, Nepal, and Bangladesh are done using ligation and excision (Michel Labrecque, Laval University, written communication, 28 May 2004). In contrast, data from 1995 indicate that only about 18% of vasectomies in the United States are done using this technique.4 Although vasectomy has traditionally been thought to have overall failure rates of 1-3% or lower,5–7 recent research indicates higher failure rates for ligation and excision.8–10 Because of a concern that vasectomy failure rates with ligation and excision could be higher than generally acknowledged, Family Health International and EngenderHealth convened a meeting of vasectomy experts in April 2001 in …
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
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".