Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyThis Month in Pediatric Urology1 Feb 2019This Month in Pediatric Urology Mark P. Cain Mark P. CainMark P. Cain More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000552628.43448.50AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Outcomes of a Gubernacular Sparing Approach during Laparoscopic Orchiopexy for Intra-Abdominal Testis There are a wide variety of surgical options for managing intra-abdominal undescended testicles, including several variations in laparoscopic and open surgical approaches. Braga et al (page 378) from Canada compared the results of 2 laparoscopic orchiopexy techniques from 2 institutions in Canada.1 The primary end points evaluated were postoperative position of the testicle and testicular atrophy, documented with physical examination and Doppler scrotal ultrasound. A total of 212 consecutive patients underwent conventional laparoscopic orchiopexy (1 or 2-stage with division of gonadal and gubernacular blood supply) or gubernacular sparing orchiopexy (1 or 2-stage with division of only the gonadal blood supply). The overall success rate was excellent, with 93% of the testicles in a scrotal location at last followup. The patients who underwent a gubernacular sparing approach had superior results, with 99% having a scrotal testicle, but there was a slightly greater incidence of high scrotal location (9%) with this technique. Despite the minor limitations mentioned in the study, the results suggest that the gubernacular sparing technique may provide superior outcomes. The article includes a nice description of the surgical technique with illustrations as well as a short video of the critical steps of the gubernacular sparing laparoscopic procedure. Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms of HAAO and IRX6 Genes as Risk Factors for Hypospadias Hypospadias is one of the most common genital anomalies in children. Many studies have further defined the hormonal and genetic alterations that increase the risk of this congenital problem, all of which build on our understanding of the embryology of this defect. Kojima et al (page 386) from Japan assessed whether genetic abnormalities that correlate to increased risk of hypospadias in European and American studies are also risk factors in Japanese children.2 They compared 169 children with hypospadias to more than 1,000 control patients for the presence of variations in the HAAO and IRX6 genes. They also examined the presence of the same genetic expression in mouse embryos. Their data confirm a similar risk factor for genetic variations of HAAO and IRX6 which has been previously reported, further supporting a common genetic risk factor for hypospadias in multiple ethnic groups. Although this study is beyond the routine knowledge base of most general and pediatric urologists, it provides further support for the genetic risk factors for hypospadias. Discrepancies in Conflict of Interest Reporting in Robotic Pediatric Urological Surgery Reporting conflicts of interest (COIs) has become mandatory in order to participate in national meetings/lectures, publish academic work and even hold an academic position at most universities. Each institution, journal and national organization defines their reporting requirements with the intent of allowing the “learner” to understand the relationships between the educator and any product/drug/equipment company etc that may directly or indirectly influence the educational material. COI disclosure is almost always self-reported, with infrequent oversight in the absence of a formal investigation. Much of the attention regarding the importance of COI disclosure developed due to the documented association of pharmaceutical industry financial support and influence on the prescribing habits of providers. Jimbo et al (page 393) used data from the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Open Payments Program to determine the accuracy of COI disclosure for literature published regarding pediatric robotic surgery, specifically evaluating whether authors who received payments from Intuitive Surgical disclosed a COI with their published manuscript.3 They reviewed 107 articles on robotic pediatric urological procedures involving 267 U.S. authors. Overall 86 articles included authors who received any type of payment from Intuitive Surgical but only 2 authors mentioned a COI, despite 98 articles having a formal COI disclosure statement. Of the 107 studies 84 had what was considered a favorable endorsement for robotic surgery. There are several limitations to this study, such as the potential for false-negative and false-positive COIs based on the timing of industry financial support and timing of manuscript development. These limitations are critical to any conclusions drawn and are explained in detail. The conclusion that authors (and presenters) should periodically check any financial payments credited to them in the CMS Open Payments database before completing their COI is a reasonable expectation based on the findings of this study. References 1. : Gubernaculum testis and cremasteric vessel preservation during laparoscopic orchiopexy for intra-abdominal testes: effect on testicular atrophy rates. J Urol 2019; 201: 378. Link, Google Scholar 2. : Single nucleotide polymorphisms of HAAO and IRX6 genes as risk factors for hypospadias. J Urol 2019; 201: 386. Link, Google Scholar 3. : Discrepancies in self-reported and actual conflicts of interest for robotic pediatric urological surgery. J Urol 2019; 201: 393. Link, Google Scholar © 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue 2February 2019Page: 200-201 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Mark P. Cain More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.709 | 0.453 |
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".