MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947237413 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.03.496

039 Characterization of Female Periurethral Tissue: Potential Impact of Mid-urethral Sling Surgeries on Female Sexual Function

2019· article· en· W2947237413 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia Giovannetti, Madeline Monaghan, Michael A. Adams, Johanna L. Hannan, Barry R. Komisaruk, S. Goldstein, Irwin Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrethraErectile tissueSling (weapon)AnatomyUrologyUrinary incontinenceSurgeryPenis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The female periurethral tissue (FPT) contains numerous glands which stain positive for prostate specific acid. These glands are surrounded by neuronal and vascular structures, and may have physiologic contribution to sexual function. The FPT is located adjacent to the anterior vaginal wall epithelium and surrounds the urethra passing distally from the bladder neck to the meatus. Decreased sexual function, especially lowered orgasm satisfaction, has been reported following mid-urethral sling procedures to treat stress urinary incontinence, and requires further investigation of this possible iatrogenic effect. Cadaver studies have shown the mid-urethral sling transects through the glandular, neuronal, and vascular structures of the FPT. The objectives of this study are to further histologically characterize the FPT and examine patterns of innervation in relation to its specific morphological features. Histologic and immunohistochemical investigations of glandular, vascular, and nervous structures of the FPT were examined from three fresh human female cadavers. The region of FPT examined was located in the same region of implanted mid-urethral slings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207