MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199988621 · doi:10.46747/cfp.6709669

Testicular torsion in children

2021· article· en· W3199988621 on OpenAlex
Maheshver Shunmugam, Ran D. Goldman

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTesticular torsionMedicineTorsion (gastropod)ReferralOvarian torsionTesticular painEmergency departmentSpermatic Cord TorsionPediatricsGeneral surgeryGynecologyFamily medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: As a family physician caring for a large pediatric population, I evaluate numerous adolescents with testicular pain. Given the gravity of prognosis for late treatment of children with testicular torsion, what are best practices for its assessment and management? ANSWER: The Testicular Workup for Ischemia and Suspected Torsion (TWIST) score has been developed and validated to identify children at risk of testicular torsion. If the TWIST score is 0 and clinical suspicion is low in the office setting, a referral to urology for urgent consultation is not needed. If the TWIST score is 1 or higher or if the clinical presentation suggests torsion, manual detorsion should be attempted and the patient should be urgently sent to the nearest emergency department.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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