MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085549697 · doi:10.5468/ogs.20121

Minimally invasive search for a missing vibrator

2020· article· en· W3085549697 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Greg Marchand, Ali Azadi, Akarshi Kaue Brar, Katelyn Sainz, Sienna Anderson, Stacy Ruther, Kelly Ware, Sophia Hopewell, Giovanna Brazil, Katerina Meassick, Hannah Wolf, Alexa King, Jannelle Vallejo, Kaitlynne Cieminski, Anthony Galitsky

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics & Gynecology Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystoscopyMedicineVibrator (electronic)LaparoscopyLaparoscopesSurgeryAbdominal cavityPelvisIntervention (counseling)NursingAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report a unique surgical procedure that was utilized to locate a missing vibrator in the pelvis of a patient. Emergency room admissions and surgery secondary to the malfunctioning of devices intended for sexual stimulation are extremely common. Emergency room staff of hospitals in the United States usually are skilled in the detection and removal of these devices. Occasionally, surgical intervention is warranted if the device enters a cavity that cannot safely be explored in the emergency room setting. We report a case of a vibrator that was lost during sexual activity. A flat plate X-ray showed it to be in the abdominal cavity. Careful questioning of the patient revealed that the device had an unusually small diameter. Surgical intervention showed that the device ultimately ended up in the bladder without causing traumatic injury. METHODS: We created a narrated video to demonstrate the surgical procedure (Canadian Task Force Classification III). RESULTS: Laparoscopy and cystoscopy were used to visualize and successfully remove the device. The patient recovered uneventfully. CONCLUSION: Following laparoscopic confirmation of the location of the device, it was removed via cystoscopy. This case demonstrates how background information, such as the size of the missing device in this case, can be critical to providing high quality patient care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics & Gynecology ScienceSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207