Spigelian hernias: A high volume institutional review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate a high-volume hernia center's experience with primary Spigelian hernias. Introduction: Spigelian hernias are rare entities presenting a diagnostic dilemma for clinicians that often lead to a delay in treatment or need for emergency surgery. Given this low incidence true patient and hernia characteristics are unknown. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review evaluating patients who underwent a Spigelian hernia repair between 2005 and 2019. Descriptive statistics were utilized. Results: The incidence of Spigelian hernias at our institution was 0.14 %. There were 141 patients with 143 spigelian hernias (two patients had bilateral hernias) repaired at our institution during the study period, the majority of these were in male patients, left sided and repaired under conscious sedation with or without the use of mesh. Conclusion: This study adds a large dataset to the paucity of literature that exists in the context of Spigelian hernias and alerts the clinician that these hernias are not exclusive to the older female population. Furthermore, this study provides the need for a high index of suspicion in patients presenting with vague abdominal pain who may not fit the typical Spigelian hernia mold.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 it