MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185562964 · doi:10.48083/nfmo2987

Vesicouterine Fistula in Burkina Faso: Report of 36 Cases in a Multicentric Study

2021· article· en· W3185562964 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bouréima Ouédraogo, Brahima Kirakoya, Moussa Kaboré, Adama Millogo, Adama Ouattara, Fasnéwindé Aristide Kaboré

Bibliographic record

VenueSociété Internationale d’Urologie Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUreteral procedures and complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaesarean sectionMedicineObstetricsContext (archaeology)EtiologyGynecologyPregnancyFistulaSurgeryInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To report etiological and therapeutic features of vesicouterine fistulas (VUF) in Burkina Faso. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective, descriptive, and multicentric study based on the medical records of women treated for VUF from January 2010 to December 2016. Results: VUF accounted for 7.2% (36/497) of urogenital fistulas managed during the study period. The median age of the 36 patients was 35 years (interquartile range = 27 to 37.5 years) with values ranging from 16 years to 64 years old. Among VUF, obstetric fistula accounted for 26 cases (26/36) versus 10 cases (10/36) of iatrogenic fistula. Obstetric VUF were consecutive to emergency Caesarean section (n = 16) and vaginal delivery (n = 10) after prolonged obstructed labor. The 10 cases of iatrogenic VUF were subsequent to prelabour Caesarean section. The main circumstance of VUF occurrence was Caesarean section (26/36). In 10 cases (10/36), VUF was associated with a vesicovaginal fistula. Thirty days after the removal of the catheter, the success rate fell from 89% to 80.6%. Conclusion: VUF is rare but its frequency is not negligible in our context. The main circumstance of occurrence remains Caesarean section. The best treatment remains prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociété Internationale d’Urologie JournalSame topicUreteral procedures and complicationsFrench-language works237,207