Timing of paediatric orchidopexy in universal healthcare systems: international administrative data cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International guidelines in 2008 recommended orchidopexy for undescended testis at 6-12 months of age to reduce the risk of testicular cancer and infertility. Using administrative data from England, Finland, Ontario (Canada), Scotland and Sweden (with data from Victoria (Australia) and Iceland in supplementary analyses), the aim of this study was to investigate compliance with these guidelines and identify potential socioeconomic inequities in the timing of surgery before 1 and 3 years. METHODS: All boys born in 2003-2011 with a diagnosis code of undescended testis and procedure codes indicating orchidopexy before their fifth birthday were identified from administrative health records. Trends in the proportion of orchidopexies performed before 1 and 3 years of age were investigated, as were socioeconomic inequities in adherence to the guidelines. RESULTS: Across all jurisdictions, the proportion of orchidopexies occurring before the first birthday increased over the study period. By 2011, from 7·6 per cent (Sweden) to 27·9 per cent (Scotland) of boys had undergone orchidopexy by their first birthday and 71·5 per cent (Sweden) to 90·4 per cent (Scotland) by 3 years of age. There was limited evidence of socioeconomic inequities for orchidopexy before the introduction of guidelines (2008). Across all jurisdictions for boys born after 2008, there was consistent evidence of inequities in orchidopexy by the first birthday, favouring higher socioeconomic position. Absolute differences in these proportions between the highest and lowest socioeconomic groups ranged from 2·5 to 5·9 per cent across jurisdictions. CONCLUSION: Consistent lack of adherence to the guidelines across jurisdictions questions whether the guidelines are appropriate.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".