Use of ultrasound for the palpable undescended testis: a wasteful practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many primary care physicians order an ultrasound (US) before referral to specialist care for suspected undescended testis; however, the value of this practice is questionable. Objective: To determine the proportion of boys referred for suspected undescended testis who had accompanying US, the cost of this practice and the accuracy of US for testis localization when compared with physical examination by a pediatric urologist. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review at a pediatric urology service, including all patients referred for suspected undescended testis from 2008 to 2012. We determined the cost of US ordered, and calculated Cohen's kappa, sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. Results: We identified 894 eligible patients; 32% (289/894) were accompanied by US. In 77% (223/289), the urologist was able to palpate the testis: 51% (147/289) had a normal/retractile testis and 26% (76/289) had a palpable undescended testis. At a cost of 71.10 CAD per US, 20 547.90 CAD was expended on this practice. Of the 223 patients with palpable testes, we were able to gather detailed US and physical examination results for 214 patients. Cohen's kappa was 0.06 (95% CI -0.005, 0.11; P = 0.10). US had 92.8% sensitivity (95% CI 84.1, 96.9%) and 15.2% specificity (95% CI 10.2, 21.9%) to detect an undescended testis. The positive predictive value was 34.2% (95% CI 27.8, 41.3%), while the negative predictive value was 81.5% (95% CI 63.3, 91.8%). Conclusions: Referral of patients for suspected undescended testis should not be accompanied by an US study as US is not useful in these cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".