Association between Testicular Microlithiasis and Testicular Neoplasia: Large Multicenter Study in a Pediatric Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To retrospectively define the strength of association between testicular microlithiasis and testicular neoplasia in a large geographically diverse pediatric population. Materials and Methods Retrospective review of scrotal ultrasonographic (US) examination reports and pathology specimens obtained between January 2000 and May 2014 at six academic pediatric hospitals in North America was performed. Reported cases were reviewed to confirm microlithiasis. Radiology and pathology data bases were searched for pathology-proven testicular tumors (benign or malignant germ cell or stromal tumors). Association strength (risk) was expressed in terms of odds ratios (ORs) with and without adjustment for fixed study site effects based on logistic regression. Results A total of 37 863 individuals underwent scrotal US during the study period. Mean age was 11.1 years ± 4.7 [standard deviation] in boys with microlithiasis and 9.1 years ± 5.9 in boys without microlithiasis (P < .001). Microlithiasis was confirmed in 2.90% of patients (1097 of 37 863; range, 1.61%–5.25% across sites). It was unilateral in 21.97% (241 of 1097) of patients and bilateral in 78.0% (856 of 1097). Tumor was identified in 4.64% (51 of 1097) of boys with microlithiasis and 0.33% (122 of 36 766) of boys without (unadjusted OR, 14.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.29, 20.84; adjusted OR, 14.19). Malignant germ cell tumors were identified in 2.8% (31 of 1097) of boys with microlithiasis and 0.12% (45 of 36 766) of boys without microlithiasis (unadjusted OR, 17.26; 95% CI: 11.8, 25.25; adjusted OR, 22.37). Sex cord–stromal tumors were identified in 0.46% (five of 1097) of boys with microlithiasis and 0.079% (29 of 36 766) of boys without (unadjusted OR, 5.8; 95% CI: 2.1, 16; adjusted OR, 6.39). Conclusion There is a strong association between testicular microlithiasis and primary testicular neoplasia in this pediatric population. © RSNA, 2017
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".