Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We reported on the incidence of isolated penile torsion among our healthy children and our approach to this anomaly. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2014, newborn babies with penile torsion were classified according to the angle of torsion. Surgical correction (penile degloving and reattachment for moderate cases and dorsal dartos flap technique in case of resistance) after 6 months was advised to the babies with rotations more than 45°. RESULTS: Among 1000 newborn babies, 200 isolated penile torsions were found, and among these, 43 had torsions more than 45°, and 4 of these had angles greater than 90°. The mean angle of the rotations was found 30.45° (median: 20°). In total, 8 children with 60° torsions were previously circumcised. Surgery was performed on 19 patients, with a mean patient age of 12 ± 2 months. Of these 19, 13 babies were corrected with degloving and reattachment. This technique was not enough on the remaining 6 patients; therefore, derotational dorsal dartos flap was added to correct the torsion. After a mean of 15.6 ± 9.8 months, residual penile rotation, less than 15°, was found only in 2 children. CONCLUSION: The incidence of isolated penile torsion is 20% in newborns. However, rotation more than 45° angles are seen in 4.3% of male babies. Correction is not necessary in mild degrees, and penile degloving with reattachment is enough in most cases. If the initial correction is insufficient, dorsal dartos flap rotation is easy and effective. Prior circumcision neither disturbs the operative procedure nor affects the outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".