MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948408818 · doi:10.1111/apa.14885

Normative data on penile and anogenital measurements of term male infants in Sagamu, Nigeria

2019· article· en· W2948408818 on OpenAlexaff
AO Adekoya, M B Fetuga, O O Jarrett, Tinuade A Ogunlesi, Jean‐Pierre Chanoine, Olubunmi Obafemi Oba‐Daini

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paediatrica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEuropean Society for Paediatric EndocrinologyInternational Business Machines Corporation
KeywordsAnogenital distanceMedicinePenisMicropenisAnthropometrySurgeryInternal medicineBiologyHypospadias

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To document normative data on penile size and anogenital distances of apparently normal term male infants in Sagamu, Nigeria. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was carried out on 303 term male infants within the first 72 hours of life. Stretched penile length, penile width and three measures of anogenital distances were recorded: anogenital distance-1, anogenital distance-2 and anoscrotal distance. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) stretched penile length and penile width were 39.4 ± 4.2 mm and 11.0 ± 1.0 mm, respectively. The mean values for anogenital distance-1, anogenital distance-2 and the anoscrotal distance were 48.7 ± 3.9 mm, 42.8 ± 4.6 mm and 25.5 ± 3.9 mm, respectively. Only penile width and anogenital distance-1 significantly correlated with all the anthropometric parameters but anogenital distance-1 had the strongest correlation (p < 0.01 for all). CONCLUSION: The observed mean stretched penile length was greater than previously reported. Local references are preferable in interpreting anogenital measurements in newborns to avoid diagnostic errors. There is need for a consensus on the definition of micropenis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa PaediatricaSame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207