Pediatric Penile Bee Sting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study, for the first time in the literature, are to evaluate the symptoms, clinical course, and treatment management of penile bee stings in children and to discuss whether bee stings can be evaluated within the scope of summer penile syndrome. METHODS: Records of all pediatric patients presented to the emergency department of our hospital from June 2020 to October 2021 due to bee sting of penis were reviewed. Only patients with isolated penile bee stings were included in the study. Patients were evaluated in terms of the age at presentation, time of occurrence, symptoms, and treatment modality. RESULTS: There were 10 patients treated for penile bee sting. Patients ranged in age from 3 to 7 years (mean, 4.2 years). The most common complaints of the patients at presentation were pain (100%), swelling (100%), and dysuria (70%). Three of the patients were unable to void. The gauze moistened with warm saline was applied to the penis of these patients who developed glob, and all of these patients urinated after the warm application. Three of the patients had progressive erythema on the penile skin. These patients were admitted to the pediatric surgery department to monitor whether skin necrosis would develop. In all patients, the erythema regressed significantly within 48 hours and regained its completely normal appearance at the end of 72 hours. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of the development of serious local reactions and urological problems in penile bee stings is low. Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and warm, wet dressing are usually sufficient to treat local reactions. Penile bee stings may be evaluated within the scope of summer penile syndrome because their symptoms, clinical findings, and treatments are almost similar.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".