Routine histopathological examination of the foreskin after circumcision for clinically suspected lichen sclerosus in children: Is it a waste of resources?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Circumcision is one of the most widely performed procedures in the world. One of the indications for circumcision is lichen sclerosis (LS). The natural history of LS in children is not as well-documented as in adult patients. Surgeons use the appearance of the foreskin or meatus to predict the diagnosis of LS. Indeed, if the diagnosis of LS is made in childhood, does it change management in the long-term? Pathological analysis of the excised foreskin is routinely done if there is suspicion of LS. Our aim is to assess the concordance between the clinical and pathological diagnosis of suspected LS and to assess the need for sending the foreskin for pathological examination. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 64 of 420 boys who underwent circumcision in a tertiary children's hospital from June 2005 to June 2014, and who had their foreskin sent for pathology due to the clinical suspicion of LS. Demographics, presenting symptoms, presumed clinical diagnosis, pathological findings, and followup data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Over the review period, 64 patients underwent circumcision for presumed LS. The mean age of the children was 9.7 years (range 3-16.5). All the children who had circumcision for presumed LS diagnosis were symptomatic. LS was confirmed in 47 of 64 foreskins (73.5%). Balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO) was clinically suspected in 40 (85%) of the 47 patients. The mean followup was 10 months (range 1-15), with seven recurrences (15%) during that period. The recurrences required revision surgery in two patients and five were managed with steroids only. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, the clinical diagnosis correlated with the pathological diagnosis in most cases. A clinical suspicion of LS without routine foreskin pathological assessment will reduces the overall cost to the healthcare system. Appropriate counselling of the patient/parents and their primary caregiver is imperative, as recurrence is common.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".