MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981177173 · doi:10.1093/asjof/ojz030

Posterior Vaginoplasty With Perineoplasty: A Canadian Experience With Vaginal Tightening Surgery

2019· article· en· W2981177173 on OpenAlex
Ryan E Austin, Frank Lista, Peter-George Vastis, Jamil Ahmad

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaginoplastySurgeryVaginaPerineumPerioperative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following vaginal trauma, most commonly vaginal delivery, women may experience vaginal laxity as a result of local tissue stretching and separation of the pelvic floor musculature. In addition to this generalized sensation of laxity, women may complain of decreased sexual satisfaction, gaping of the perineum, and excessive vaginal secretions. Since 2014, the authors have used a posterior vaginoplasty with perineoplasty technique for the surgical management of vaginal laxity. To date, the authors have performed surgical vaginal tightening in 30 consecutive patients and found that the posterior vaginoplasty with perineoplasty technique has allowed us to achieve reproducible outcomes with no postoperative complications. This article will review the authors' approach to patients presenting for surgical vaginal tightening and the authors' experience to date, including our preoperative screening, perioperative management, and detailed steps of the procedure.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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