CUA guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision in Canadian infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dave et al Guideline: Foreskin care and neonatal circumcision Methods Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE including Pre-MEDLINE EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews®, Web of Science® -with Conference Proceedings, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic bibliographic databases and were restricted to either adult or pediatric studies (</> 18 years) (2002 to March 2013).All searches were restricted to studies published in English language only.The search queries were developed using combination of subject headings and free-text terms such as circumcision, circumcision male, uncircumcised, male sexual dysfunction, sexual dysfunction physiological, sexual dysfunctions psychological, erectile dysfunction, sexual problems, sexual arousal disorder, ejaculation dysfunction, sexuality, prostatic neoplasms, prostate cancer, prostate tumor, penile neoplasms, penile cancer, urinary tract infections, phimosis, HIV infections, HIV, human immunodeficiency virus, HPV infections, STI's, using variant spellings and endings.For all searches, editorials, news and letters were excluded.The bibliographies of all relevant retrieved articles and reviews were also examined to identify further relevant articles.A total of 2674 records were identified and after removing duplicate records and excluding non-relevant studies, 229 studies were identified for detailed analysis and included in this analysis.
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 | 0.022 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".