MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133308601 · doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7486.296

Recent developments in vasectomy

2005· review· en· W2133308601 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMale Reproductive Health Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasectomyMedicineTubal ligationFamily planningVas deferensSurgeryDeveloped countryPopulationGeneral surgeryResearch methodologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.442
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.171 · 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