MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A MULTICENTER EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PREFERENCES FOR PRIMARY HYPOSPADIAS REPAIR

2005· article· en· W2165375371 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.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypospadiasMedicineConfidence intervalCohortMulticenter studyCohort studyGynecologyGeneral surgerySurgeryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Considerable controversy exists regarding the optimal surgical technique for the repair of mid shaft and proximal hypospadias. We sought to evaluate differences in surgical preferences among an international cohort of pediatric urologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire containing relevant demographic data as well as choices of technique to repair 5 representative hypospadias cases was developed and administered. RESULTS: Of 121 pediatric urologists contacted 101 completed the survey, representing an 83% response rate. The majority were full-time academic pediatric urologists who performed 6 to 10 hypospadias surgeries monthly. A total of 92 respondents (confidence interval [CI) 0.84 to 0.96) preferred the tubularized incised urethral plate (TIP) technique for the repair of distal hypospadias. Similarly, 82 (CI 0.72 to 0.88) preferred TIP for the repair of mid shaft hypospadias. The 2 most common techniques for repair of proximal hypospadias without chordee, preferred by 43 correspondents each (CI 0.33 to 0.53), were TIP and transverse island flap (TVIF) onlay. For repair of moderate (30-degree to 40-degree) chordee dorsal plication was preferred by 82 respondents, while a ventral approach was preferred by 12. When moderate chordee was associated TVIF onlay was preferred by 35 (CI 0.26 to 0.45) and TIP by 24 respondents (CI 0.16 to 0.34). For severe chordee (greater than 50 degrees) 31 respondents preferred dorsal plication, while 68 chose some form of ventral repair. Among the respondents 37 approach proximal hypospadias associated with severe chordee using a staged procedure, while 40 use a single stage procedure using a TVIF tube (CI 0.30 to 0.50). Using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, no significant correlations were identified between respondent practice demographics and choice of repair for each hypothetical hypospadias case. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of pediatric urologists we observed that the majority prefers TIP to repair distal and mid shaft hypospadiac defects. Significant variability exists for preferred technique for proximal hypospadias and chordee correction. These results support the need for prospective trials comparing techniques for the repair of proximal hypospadias.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.279 · 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