MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618218068 · doi:10.21037/tau.2017.04.26

The use of penile prostheses in the management of priapism

2017· review· en· W2618218068 on OpenAlex
Jonathan E. Moore, Thomas F. Whelan, Gavin Langille

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Andrology and Urology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPriapismPenile prosthesisPenisMedicineErectile dysfunctionInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Priapism is a relatively uncommon condition that can result in erectile dysfunction (ED) and corporal fibrosis. Cases of prolonged priapism are particularly prone to ED, which arises when priapism is treatment refractory or had a delayed presentation. Due to the emergent nature of priapism, it behooves urologists to be familiar with all potential treatment modalities to minimize adverse outcomes. In this review paper, we aim to summarize the literature regarding the use of penile prosthesis (PP) implantation in the setting of ischemic priapism (IP). In some patients who present later or have prolonged initial treatment, early insertion of PP may be indicated.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.301
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.101 · 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