Where to draw the line? Understanding preferences in mucosal collar length after circumcision: A crowdsourced survey from the U.S. general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Male circumcision is a polarizing and prevalent procedure. Little understanding exists regarding patient preferences for circumcision appearance. Our objective was to elicit how mucosal collar length may be perceived in terms of overall cosmesis and desirability among adults. METHODS: A questionnaire using REDCap was created and distributed through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Respondents provided demographic information and circumcision status before being challenged with artistic representations of circumcised penises with increasing lengths of mucosal collar. Participants were asked to select the most and least esthetically pleasing image, as well as rate the "importance of appearance" from 0-100. Responses were analyzed with ordinal regression models. RESULTS: Preference for shorter mucosal collars were seen in respondents with a postgraduate education (p=0.013) and no religious affiliation (p=0.034). In contrast, participants reporting a religious affiliation preferred longer mucosal collars (p=0.034). Circumcised males rated appearance as being more important (p=0.001) in contrast to uncircumcised males who did not (p=0.001). Circumcised fathers were more likely to circumcise their sons relative to uncircumcised fathers (p<0.05) and women preferred circumcision (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed polarized esthetic preferences in the sample as a whole, with large proportions of respondents selecting the longest or shortest collar length. Preferences regarding mucosal collar length appear to be most influenced by education and religion. Overall, our study did not observe a predominant preference for mucosal collar length following circumcision. Surgeons should engage patients and/or caregivers/parents preoperatively in discussions regarding preferences and desired cosmetic outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".