MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140252433 · doi:10.1038/aja.2012.80

The evolution and refinement of vasoepididymostomy techniques

2012· review· en· W2140252433 on OpenAlex
Peter Chan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Andrology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasovasostomyObstructive azoospermiaMicrosurgeryAnastomosisMedicineIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionIntussusception (medical disorder)SurgeryGeneral surgeryBiologyInfertility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obstructive azoospermia secondary to epididymal obstruction can be corrected by microsurgical reconstruction with vasoepididymostomy (VE). Although alternative management such as epididymal or testicular sperm aspiration in conjunction with intracytoplasmic sperm injection is feasible, various studies have established the superior cost-effectiveness of VE as a treatment of choice. Microsurgical VE is considered one of the most technically challenging microsurgeries. Its success rate is highly dependent on the skills and experience of the surgeons. Various techniques have been described in the literature for VE. We have pioneered a technique known as longitudinal intussusception VE (LIVE) in which the epididymal tubule is opened longitudinally to obtain a larger opening to allow its tubular content to pass through the anastomosis. Our preliminary data demonstrated a patency rate of over 90%. This technique has been widely referenced in the recent literature including robotic-assisted microsurgery. The history of the development of different VE approaches, the preoperative evaluation along with the techniques of various VE will be described in this article.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.284 · 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