Practical approach to evaluating testicular status in infants and children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the differences between normal, retractile, ectopic, ascended, and undescended testes and to describe the optimal way to perform a testicular examination to distinguish one from the other, as well as to demonstrate that ultrasound imaging is not necessary and to clarify when to consider specialist referral. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: . MAIN MESSAGE: is defined as the true absence of one testis (or both testes) from normal scrotal position. Ectopic and ascended testes will likewise be absent from the scrotum, the latter having been present at one point in development. Differentiating among testicular examination findings is important, as descended and retractile testes are managed conservatively, while prompt surgical intervention should be offered for ascended, ectopic, and undescended testes. Uncertainty surrounding the diagnosis of an undescended testis causes anxiety, might lead to unwarranted imaging, and might increase the wait list for specialty assessment. For this reason, avoidance of ultrasound in the evaluation of undescended testes was included in the recent Choosing Wisely Canada campaign. We seek to clarify the physical examination findings in the evaluation of possible undescended testes, the suggested referral parameters, and the subsequent management. CONCLUSION: Undescended testes and their variants are common. As decision for referral is based on the primary care physician's physical examination findings, we clarify distinguishing between normal and abnormal findings on testicular examination to aid in appropriate referral for subspecialist evaluation. Consultation, if needed, should be sought at 6 months' corrected gestational age, or at detection if later than 6 months, without delay for ultrasound imaging, as surgical management is recommended for those patients with undescended, ectopic, or ascended testes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".