MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461050449

[Anatomic variations of the spermatic vein and endovascular treatment of left varicoceles: a pediatric series].

2004· article· en· W2461050449 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Garel, J Dubois, Françoise Rypens, Alain Ouimet, Salam Yazbeck

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular anomalies and interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaricoceleEmbolizationLeft renal veinPercutaneousRadiologyPopulationSurgeryInferior vena cavaInfertility
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report on the high incidence of anatomical variants of the origin and course of the internal spermatic vein (ISV) discovered at the time of percutaneous embolization of left varicoceles in a pediatric population. METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively the 65 cases of left varicocele treated by percutaneous embolization (grade II and III) in our institution between 1990 and 2000. The course of the left renal vein (LRV), the origin of the ISV, and the number of ISVs and their pathway were recorded in all cases, according to the Bähren classification. RESULTS: In 37/65 (57%), the ISV was single and arose from a normal LRV (type I). The following variants were encountered: type V--circumaortic LRV 9/65 (14%); type IVb--intrarenal origin of ISV 8/65 (12%); type II--multiple ISV 5/65 (8%); and pelvic collaterals 6/65 (9%). CONCLUSION: Venous anatomical variants are frequently encountered (43%) at the time of left varicocele embolization in children. Such variants often impose some adjustments to the technique of embolization and, at times, hamper the procedure.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVascular anomalies and interventionsFrench-language works237,207