MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PD02-11 WHEN AND HOW TO DISCLOSE GENITAL SURGERY TO GIRLS WITH CAH? EXPERIENCES AND PREFERENCES OF WOMEN WITH CAH

2022· article· en· W4226420180 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ashley W. Johnston, Mimi S. Kim, Paul Kokorowski, Devon J. Hensel, Patrice Yasuda, Konrad M. Szymanski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCongenital adrenal hyperplasiaSex organGeneral surgeryPediatricsGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022PD02-11 WHEN AND HOW TO DISCLOSE GENITAL SURGERY TO GIRLS WITH CAH? EXPERIENCES AND PREFERENCES OF WOMEN WITH CAH Ashley W. Johnston, Mimi S. Kim, Paul Kokorowski, Devon J. Hensel, Patrice M. Yasuda, and Konrad M. Szymanski Ashley W. JohnstonAshley W. Johnston More articles by this author , Mimi S. KimMimi S. Kim More articles by this author , Paul KokorowskiPaul Kokorowski More articles by this author , Devon J. HenselDevon J. Hensel More articles by this author , Patrice M. YasudaPatrice M. Yasuda More articles by this author , and Konrad M. SzymanskiKonrad M. Szymanski More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002517.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: To describe experiences and preferences of disclosing childhood genital surgery to females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). METHODS: We conducted an anonymous cross-sectional online survey of CAH females (46XX, ≥16 years [y] old), living in Canada and the United States, who underwent genital surgery before age 4y. Data included experiences and preferences of initial (“first time you were told”) and complete disclosure (“told all details of the surgery”). Non-parametric statistics were used. RESULTS: Median age of 59 participants was 37y. The 76% of women who received complete disclosure were younger (median age: 33y) and underwent surgery more recently (median decade of surgery: 1980s) than the 14% who received only initial disclosure (median: 47y, 1970s) and 10% without any disclosure (median: 61y, 1960s, p=0.0003). Median age of initial and complete disclosure was 7-10y and 11-13y years, respectively (Table). Disclosure was preferred by 58 (98%) women, with initial disclosure by age 14y and complete disclosure by 18y. Most disclosures were by women’s mothers (initial: 82%, complete: 64%). Doctors were more involved in the complete (47%) vs. initial disclosures (13%, p<0.001), coinciding with women’s preferences to include their mothers (72%) and doctors (43%) in the disclosure process. Complete disclosure had predominately neutral/mixed and positive effects, rather than negative, on relationships with parents (neutral/mixed: 68%, positive: 18%, negative: 7%, unknown: 7%) and doctors (neutral/mixed: 64%, positive: 21%, negative: 14%, unknown: 2%). CONCLUSIONS: Disclosure of childhood genital surgery to women with CAH has increased over time. Although timing of disclosures varied, women preferred disclosure, initiating it before age 14y and complete disclosure before age 18y. Disclosure may benefit relationships with parents and physicians. Source of Funding: Departmental research funding © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e39 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ashley W. Johnston More articles by this author Mimi S. Kim More articles by this author Paul Kokorowski More articles by this author Devon J. Hensel More articles by this author Patrice M. Yasuda More articles by this author Konrad M. Szymanski More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

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)0.000
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 score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207