Re: Cost Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision in a Large Health Maintenance Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyLetter to the Editor/errata1 Nov 2006Re: Cost Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision in a Large Health Maintenance OrganizationE. J. Schoen, C. J. Colby and T. T. To J Urol, 175: 1111–1115, 2006 E.J. Schoen, C.J. Colby, and T.T. To E.J. SchoenE.J. Schoen More articles by this author , C.J. ColbyC.J. Colby More articles by this author , and T.T. ToT.T. To More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.071AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail References 1 : Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners. N Engl J Med2002; 346: 1105. Google Scholar 2 : Chlamydia trachomatis infection in female partners of circumcised and uncircumcised adult men. Am J Epidemiol2005; 162: 907. Google Scholar 3 : Genital chlamydial infections. N Engl J Med2003; 349: 2424. Google Scholar 4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program- Reducing Mortality Through Screening. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/about.htm Google Scholar 5 : Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys. Med J Aust2003; 178: 155. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_04_170203/spi10278_fm.html. Google Scholar 6 Ottawa: Canadian Paediatric Society2004. http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm. Google Scholar 7 : Triple incision to treat phimosis in children: an alternative to circumcision (letter to the editor). BJU Int2004; 93: 636. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.4686_3.x. Google Scholar 8 : Treating phimosis. Med J Aust2003; 178: 148. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_04_170203/dew10610_fm.html. Google Scholar 9 : Preputial development in Japanese boys. Hinyokika Kiyo2004; 50: 305. Google Scholar 10 : Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys (letter to the editor). Med J Aust2003; 178: 587. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_11_020603/matters_arising_020603-1.html. Google Scholar 11 : Patologisk eller fysiologisk fimose?. Ugeskr Laeger2005; 167: 1858. Google Scholar 12 : Preputial retraction in children. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg2005; 10: 89. http://www.jiaps.com/article.asp?issn=0971-9261;year=2005;volume=10;issue=2;spage=89;epage=91;aulast=Agarwal. Google Scholar 13 : Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children. J Urol2003; 169: 1106. Link, Google Scholar 14 : Phimosis: stretching methods with or without application of topical steroids?. J Pediatr2005; 147: 705. Google Scholar 15 : A cost-utility analysis of neonatal circumcision. Med Decis Making2004; 24: 584. Google Scholar 16 : Neonatal circumcision: a ten-year overview: with comparison of the Gomco clamp and the Plastibell device. Pediatrics1976; 58: 824. Google Scholar 17 : Incidence of neonatal circumcision in Atlanta, 1985–1986. South Med J1995; 88: 411. Google Scholar 18 : Infant circumcision in an outpatient setting. Tex Med1989; 85: 37. Google Scholar 19 : Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics1989; 83: 1011. Google Scholar 20 : A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics2000; 105: 246. Google Scholar 21 : The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer. Pediatrics2000; 105: e36. Google Scholar 22 : Risk factors for penile cancer: results of a population-based case-control study in Los Angeles County (United States). Cancer Causes Control2001; 12: 267. Google Scholar 23 : Cancer statistics, 1995. CA Cancer J Clin1995; 45: 8. Google Scholar 24 : Circumcision and the risk of cancer of the penis: A life-table analysis. Am J Dis Child1980; 134: 484. Google Scholar 25 : Epidemiological aspects of cancer of the penis in Finland. Eur J Cancer Prev1992; 1: 153. Google Scholar 26 : Falling incidence of penis cancer in an uncircumcised population (Denmark 1943–90). BMJ1995; 311: 1471. Google Scholar 27 : Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis and of the cervix, vulva and vagina in spouses: is there any relationship?: An epidemiological study from Norway, 1960–92. Br J Cancer1997; 76: 658. Google Scholar 28 : Newborn circumcision decreases incidence and cost of urinary tract infections during the first year of life. Pediatrics2000; 105: 789. Google Scholar 29 : Newborn circumcision and urinary tract infections. Pediatrics2001; 107: 211. Google Scholar 30 : Newborn circumcision and urinary tract infections. Pediatrics2001; 107: 211. Google Scholar 31 : Newborn circumcision and urinary tract infections. Pediatrics2001; 107: 212. Google Scholar 32 : Newborn circumcision and urinary tract infections. Pediatrics2001; 107: 212. Google Scholar 33 : Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: a systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies. Arch Dis Child2005; 90: 838. Google Scholar 34 : Circumcision and personal hygiene in school boys. Med Off1964; 112: 171. Google Scholar 35 : Female to male transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1: risk factors for seroconversion in men. Lancet1989; 2: 403. Google Scholar 36 : The incidence of phimosis in boys. BJU Int1999; 84: 101. Google Scholar 37 : Phimosis in boys. Br J Urol1980; 52: 147. Google Scholar 38 : Balanitis. Br J Urol1989; 63: 196. Google Scholar 39 : Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys: survey of trends in practice. BMJ2000; 321: 792. Google Scholar 40 : Postneonatal circumcision: population profile. Pediatrics1990; 85: 808. Google Scholar 41 : Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary-tract infection. Lancet1998; 352: 1813. Google Scholar 42 : Neonatal circumcision: associated factors and length of hospital stay. J Fam Pract1995; 41: 370. Google Scholar 43 : Incidence of meatal stenosis following neonatal circumcision in a primary care setting. Clin Pediatr (Phila)2006; 45: 49. Google Scholar 44 : Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study. Br J Urol1997; 80: 776. Google Scholar 45 : Neonatal circumcision and penile problems: an 8-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics1988; 81: 537. Google Scholar 46 : Topical steroid treatment of phimosis in boys. J Urol1999; 162: 861. Link, Google Scholar 47 : Medical management of phimosis in children: our experience with topical steroid. J Urol1999; 162: 1162. Link, Google Scholar 48 : Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid. Urology2000; 56: 307. Google Scholar 49 : Phimosis: local nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory ointment application. J Urol1997; 18: 196. Google Scholar 50 : Complications of circumcision. Urol Clin North Am1983; 10: 543. Google Scholar 51 : Complications of circumcision. Br J Surg1993; 80: 1231. Google Scholar 52 Gibbons, M. D. and Caldamone, A. C.: Unpublished data Google Scholar 53 Woodard, J.: Personal communication Google Scholar 54 : Doctors Re-Examine Circumcision. Seattle, Washington: Third Millennium Publishing2002. Google Scholar 55 Denniston, G.: ABC Chat with Dr. George Denniston. Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Available at: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/ABC_Chat2.html Google Scholar 56 : Point/counterpoint: is circumcision healthy?: Yes. No. Priorities. Physicians Wkly1999; 9: 24. Google Scholar 57 : Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis. Int J STD AIDS1999; 10: 8. Google Scholar 58 : Analysis of the scientific literature on male circumcision and risk for HIV infection (letter to the editor). Int J STD AIDS1999; 10: 626. Google Scholar 59 : Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics1999; 103: 686. Google Scholar 60 : Report of the Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics1989; 84: 388. Google Scholar 61 : Infections and related conditions. In: Surgery in World War II: Urology. Washington, D. C: Medical Department, Office of the Surgeon General and Center for Military History, United States Army1987: 99. Google Scholar © 2006 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 176Issue 5November 2006Page: 2315-2319 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2006 by American Urological AssociationMetricsAuthor Information E.J. Schoen More articles by this author C.J. Colby More articles by this author T.T. To More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.004 |
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".