MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332756970 · doi:10.1097/spv.0b013e318264c8e0

Delayed Presentation of Pseudoabscess Secondary to Injection of Pyrolytic Carbon-Coated Beads Bulking Agent

2012· article· en· W2332756970 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell B. Berger, Daniel M. Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenueFemale Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsBerger (Canada)
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryPresentation (obstetrics)Urinary incontinenceCase presentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Periurethral masses after injection of Durasphere bulking material have been previously reported to occur within 12 to 18 months of administration of the agent. METHODS: We present a case report of an anterior vaginal wall mass resulting from a pseudoabscess containing Durasphere agent 5 years after injection. A literature review of urethral bulking agent complications and imaging is also provided. RESULTS: The patient's anterior vaginal wall mass was thought to be due to a pseudoabscess secondary to injection of bulking agent. Pelvic imaging was helpful both in identifying the mass and in surgical planning. The patient was successfully treated by outpatient transvaginal resection of the material. CONCLUSIONS: Urethral bulking agents, although generally safe and effective in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence, can lead to formation of pseudoabscesses. Although these are usually recognized within the first 18 months after injection, they may not be identified until several years later.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFemale Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207