Audit of referrals for concern regarding labial appearance at the Royal Children's Hospital: 2000–2012
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".