Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors present the case of a patient with a 46, XX ovotesticular disorder of sex development diagnosed only in adulthood.[1] Cases like this one always result in a challenge for the treating team, as all treatment needs to be individualized. Since the 2005 Chicago consensus for disorders of sex development (DSD), the importance of a standardized terminology has become of significant relevance.[2] From an academic point of view, using the same technical terminology reduces confusion and helps the compilation of data for future studies. Authors fail to use standard terminology despite having the consensus as a reference. The frequency of these conditions makes management very challenging, and it is important to have specialized transdisciplinary teams, as this may improve the quality of care for these patients.[3] [4] [5] The authors present the chronological management for this patient, and it would be interesting to know the evolution and support given to the patient, from a psychosocial perspective, after surgery.[6] It would also be interesting to include in the discussion the rationale for the second laparotomy and how this was discussed with the patient.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".