What the paediatrician should know about paediatric and adolescent gynecology: The perspective of a gynecologist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gynecological problems are common in children but training in this subject is rare during paediatric postgraduate education. Knowledge in this area is important for providing comprehensive health care to children. The article explores the gynecological examination of the child and common gynecological disorders in the paediatric and adolescent age groups. Routine examination of the external genitalia as part of a well-child physical normalizes the examination for the child and helps to inform the physician about the large variations in normal genitals. Many complaints can be dealt with by reassurance, while most others respond to medical therapy and can be dealt with easily by paediatricians. Both young children and adolescents respond positively when allowed to have control over the tempo of the interview and the examination. A positive experience associated with a genital examination will help to open lines of trust. This along with nonjudgmental, open communication, will create educational opportunities to enhance a responsible transition from child to young adult.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".