MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333831283 · doi:10.1097/spv.0b013e31827cd3c5

Groin Granuloma Formation After Midurethral Sling

2013· article· en· W2333831283 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Kow, Mark D. Walters

Bibliographic record

VenueFemale Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSling (weapon)GroinSurgeryGranulomaSurgical meshGranuloma formationComplicationPyogenic granulomaHerniaLesionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Complications of midurethral transoburator slings include injuries directly associated with trocar placement or subsequent erosion of the mesh that is placed. While tissue reaction to implanted mesh material occurs, rarely does it produce clinical symptoms. We report a case of granuloma formation after a transobturator tape midurethral sling presenting as a groin mass. CASE: A 59-year-old para 2 postmenopausal woman underwent uncomplicated placement of a transobturator tape midurethral sling concomitantly with prolapse repair. Two years later, she presented to her primary care physician complaining of a 1-cm groin mass. After failure of empiric treatment with antibiotics for a presumed infectious etiology, surgical resection of the mass was performed, which revealed granuloma formation surrounding the polypropylene mesh. CONCLUSION: Granuloma formation can occur years after placement of a midurethral transobturator sling. Whereas a rare complication, it is important for surgeons to consider this diagnosis during the workup of a groin mass.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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