MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306250065 · doi:10.22374/jeleu.v5i3.152

An Atypical Presentation of Penile Fracture with Urethral Injury

2022· article· en· W4306250065 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shiv Sarna, Wesam Al-Dhahir, Tariq Sami, Fahd Nawaz Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endoluminal Endourology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenile fractureMedicinePenisTunica albuginea (penis)EcchymosisSurgeryPresentation (obstetrics)UrethraPhysical examination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Penile fracture is a urological emergency that occurs following a traumatic rupture of the tunica albuginea. Patients experience an audible ‘pop’ and immediate detumescence during sexual activity, followed by pain, swelling and ecchymosis. It is uncommon for patients to present without these typical clinical findings. Case Presentation: This case report describes a 33-year-old male with an atypical penile fracture and associated urethral injury. He reported mild pain as his penis buckled against his partner’s thigh during sexual intercourse and a sudden detumescence. Examination was unremarkable other than gross blood at the external urethral meatus. MRI identified a 4 mm focal capsular defect at the ventral aspect of the left corpora cavernosum. Flexible cystoscopy identified a 2cm longitudinal tear in the distal urethra. The patient underwent successful surgical repair with no long term sequalae. Conclusions: The authors of this report wish to highlight the importance of keeping a high index of suspicion for penile fractures in light of a typical history.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Endoluminal EndourologySame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207