Management of ejaculatory duct obstruction by seminal vesiculoscopy: Case Report and Literature Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ejaculatory duct obstruction is a rare condition identified in up to 5% of infertile men. Patients with ejaculatory duct obstruction can present with aspermia, azoospermia or oligoasthenospermia, painful ejaculation, hematospermia, prostatic pain, or male infertility. Semen analysis, transrectal ultrasonography, pelvic computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are often used in the diagnostic work up, but with limited accuracy. While transurethral resection of the ejaculatory ducts has good efficacy for distal duct obstruction, results for proximal obstruction are less impressive, and it might cause severe complications, such as rectal injury and urinary incontinence. Recently, the use of high quality endourological devices and an improved understanding of ejaculatory ducts anatomy gleaned through the use of sophisticated imaging tools have led to the development of novel minimally invasive treatment options for this condition. The present study aims to report an index case of ejaculatory ducts obstruction managed with seminal vesiculoscopy, and review the current literature regarding this topic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it