Comparative study of neonatal clitoral length measurement using calliper and spatula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: When standard instruments are unavailable for clitoral length measurement, improvisation with locally available tools could be of diagnostic value. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine how the clitoral length measured with a wooden spatula compared to that measured with a caliper. Methods: This was a comparative cross-sectional study. Three hundred and five term female infants were recruited from multiple health facilities in Sagamu, Ogun State, Nigeria. The clitoral length was measured with a sliding digital caliper and a wooden spatula (tongue depressor). All the measurements were taken within the first 72 hours of life and comparative analysis was carried out. Results: The mean (± SD) clitoral length using the sliding digital caliper and the spatula were 6.7 ± 1.6 mm and 6.5 ± 1.8 mm respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean values of both measurements (t = 1.369, p = 0.171). Pearson’s correlation showed that both variables were significantly correlated (r = 0.693, p < 0.001) and the spatula length was a moderate predictor of the caliper length (Coefficient of determination [R2] = 0.48 and p < 0.001). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that the determination of clitoral length using a spatula, commonly found in all community settings, is similar to determination of clitoral length using a digital caliper, most often used for clinical research.
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".