MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581514062 · doi:10.1186/s13633-017-0042-1

Normative penile anthropometry in term newborns in Kumasi, Ghana: a cross-sectional prospective study

2017· article· en· W2581514062 on OpenAlexaff
Serwah Bonsu Asafo‐Agyei, Emmanuel Ameyaw, Jean‐Pierre Chanoine, Samuel Blay Nguah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
FundersEuropean Society for Paediatric Endocrinology
KeywordsMedicineAnthropometryNormativeCross-sectional studyTerm (time)PediatricsProspective cohort studySurgeryPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Genital measurements are a useful adjunct in the early detection of various endocrine conditions including hypopituitarism and disorders of sexual differentiation. Standards for genital sizes have been published but racial/ethnic differences exist. This study was done to establish norms for genital sizes in term Ghanaian male newborns. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of all apparently well full-term newborns of postnatal age < 48 h and birth weight between 2.5 and 4.0 kg delivered at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital within the study period. Anthropometric and genital parameters were documented for study subjects as well as parental socio-demographic indices. RESULTS: < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Using the conventional definition of micropenis as stretched penile length (SPL) < 2.5 standard deviation (SD) below the mean and macropenis as an SPL > 2.5 SD, a Ghanaian term newborn may warrant investigation if he has an MPL < 2.1 cm or > 4.4 cm.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pediatric EndocrinologySame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207