MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

US of the Pediatric Female Pelvis: A Clinical Perspective

2001· review· en· W2162706312 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Garel, J Dubois, Andrée Grignon, D Filiatrault, Guy Van Vliet

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUterusGynecologyOvarian torsionPelvic painOvarian cystGenitourinary systemCystRadiologyAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When investigating pelvic pathologic conditions in female pediatric patients, one needs to be aware of the developmental changes that take place around puberty. The prepubertal uterus is thin, with a fundus equal in size to the cervix. Owing to the hormonal stimulation of puberty, the uterus enlarges and the fundus becomes prominent. The ovaries are demonstrated with ultrasonography (US) at all ages. Ovarian volume increases after 6 years of age. Microcystic follicles are normally seen throughout childhood. US is the modality of choice for imaging the pediatric female pelvis. The main indications for pelvic US in the pediatric age group are pubertal precocity or pubertal delay, pelvic pain or pelvic masses, and ambiguous genitalia. Vaginal bleeding in the prepubertal child can be due to a vaginal foreign body, vaginal rhabdomyosarcoma, or precocious puberty. Common causes of primary amenorrhea in teenagers include gonadal dysgenesis (Turner syndrome) and müllerian (uterovaginal) anomalies. Pelvic pain or pelvic masses in pediatric patients can be due to ovarian torsion, hemorrhagic ovarian cyst, pelvic inflammatory disease, or ectopic pregnancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations188
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207