MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2545059502 · doi:10.1111/ijun.12130

An evaluation study examining penile bacterial flora in boys undergoing hypospadias surgery with foreskin reconstruction

2016· article· en· W2545059502 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Sanders, Richard J. Drew, Christine Gerrard, Helen F. McAndrew

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urological Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeskinMedicineHypospadiasSkin floraPenisSurgeryComplicationUrethra

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Hypospadias surgery with foreskin reconstruction is an increasingly preferred option for the management of this common condition. The objective of this study was to identify the bacterial flora present before and after cleansing of the prepuce as well as 7 d after surgery. Sixty‐three boys aged between 12–14 months, with primary distal hypospadias undergoing tubularized incised plate repair, were recruited between October 2013 and April 2014. Microbiological swabs were taken pre‐ and post‐operatively to identify organisms present under their foreskin at the time of surgery and compared with organisms present 7 d post‐operatively at the time of dressing removal. A parent reported wound infection tool was used to explore parents' perception and management of their son's wound 4 weeks following surgery. Bacterial colonization of the penis was common. Routine cleansing with an alcoholic chlorhexidine solution reduced bacterial flora in 82% of boys with a positive preoperative swab result. Post‐operative colonization of the penis was found in 93% of patients, wound dressing colonization was common. Two parents' reported concerns regarding their son's wound healing. Topical cleansing at the time of surgery is effective in reducing the number of organisms present under the foreskin. Despite recolonization 7 d after surgery, clinical infection remains uncommon. Complication rate 12 months after surgery was very low <2%.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Urological NursingSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207