Ischemic priapism: Can eosinophil count and platelet functions be positive predictive factors in etiopathogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the relation between ischemic priapism (IP) and blood count parameters in IP patients. We especially wanted to examine the contribution of eosinophil count (EC), platelet count (PC), and mean platelet volume (MPV) values, which are suspected predictive parameters for vascular endothelium damage and venoocclusive pathogenesis and etiopathogenesis, particularly in IP. METHODS: A total of 40 IP patients fulfilled the study criteria. Forty healthy volunteers in a similar age group were included as the control group. Complete blood count values were compared between the two groups. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and the chi-square test was used to assess the relationship between categorical variables in the patient groups. The area under the curve was calculated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) regression analyses. Epidemiological diagnosis percentages were calculated by finding cutoff values. RESULTS: The IP group's high MPV, PC, and EC values compared to those of the control group were detected to be statistically significant (p<0.001, p=0,03, p=0.001, respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups for other blood count parameters. Statistically significant values for IP were measured as MPV: positive predictive value: 84%; EC: positive predictive value: 71.4%; and PC: positive predictive value: 61.4%. CONCLUSIONS: High MPV, PC, and EC values are significant positive predictive factors in IP etiopathogenesis. No proof was detected for other blood count parameters playing an active role in IP etiopathogenesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".