A Simple Guide for Simple Orchiectomy in Transition-Related Surgeries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, there is no literature on orchiectomy as a stand-alone procedure in the transgender surgical context. AIM: To propose a simple guide to aid health-care professionals caring for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals seeking bilateral simple orchiectomy. METHODS: We use expert opinion to provide a novel guide for simple orchiectomy in the transition-related context for health-care professionals caring for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals. A review of relevant literature was also performed focusing on simple orchiectomy and vaginoplasty surgeries for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We describe the indications, surgical approach, preoperative and postoperative assessment, and the risks and benefits of bilateral simple orchiectomy in the context of gender surgery. RESULTS: This article is the first, to our knowledge, to describe a structured guide to bilateral simple orchiectomy in the context of gender surgery for health-care professionals caring for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Bilateral scrotal orchiectomy is a simple surgical procedure that has a defined role in the surgical management of many transgender individuals. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This article provides an approach to simple orchiectomy in the context of gender surgery for health-care professionals. Only guidelines written in English were included. The quality of the included guidelines was not evaluated, but this was beyond the scope of this review. CONCLUSION: We present a novel guide for health-care professionals caring for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals seeking bilateral simple orchiectomy in the context of gender surgery. Francis C, Grober E, Potter E, et al. A Simple Guide for Simple Orchiectomy in Transition-Related Surgeries. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:492-496.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.020 |
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".