Audit of referrals for concern regarding labial appearance at the Royal Children's Hospital: 2000–2012
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To audit the clinical features and outcomes for all patients referred to our centre with concerns regarding labial appearance. METHODS: Young females referred to a paediatric/adolescent gynaecology tertiary centre between 2000 and 2012 with concerns regarding their labial appearance were retrospectively identified. Adolescents presenting with anomalies were excluded. Retrospective chart review was undertaken to identify reasons for referral, patient characteristics, outcome of referral and concurrent health problems. RESULTS: In total, 46 females presenting with concerns about labial appearance were identified. Five were excluded. Median age of the study population was 14.5 years (range 5-21 years). Only four (9.8%) underwent surgery after a minimum of five consultations each, with mental health review in three of four cases prior to surgery. None of the 41 patients had documented abnormal labia; however, 6 patients had asymmetry, and 3 had a labial width of >5 cm. Of mothers, 24% (n = 10) raised the initial concern regarding labial appearance to a physician, of whom, 50% of patients had a comorbid condition. In total, 70.7% initially reported interference with daily activities, and 87.8% were reassured following discussion. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate education and counselling, the majority of girls with concerns regarding labial appearance can be managed without surgery. Overall, our data support current international policy that female cosmetic genital surgery not be performed in mature minors unless there are specific indications. More research about characteristics of patients referred with labial concerns, definition of labial size and long-term satisfaction of conservative versus surgical methods is necessary to determine the best approach.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it