Successful treatment of body integrity dysphoria with amputation: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key Clinical Message: In select cases of body integrity identity disorder or body integrity dysphoria where noninvasive treatments prove ineffective and the patient's distress is substantial, elective amputation may serve as a viable and highly satisfying intervention, aligning the individual's physical self with their perceived identity. Abstract: This case report presents an illustration of body integrity identity disorder (BIID), wherein a 20 years old ambidextrous male experiencing profound distress over his left hand's fourth and fifth fingers sought elective amputation after noninvasive treatments proved unsuccessful. Despite ethical concerns and limited literature on BIID, the decision to proceed with elective surgery was based on the patient's sustained desire, potential risks of self-harm, and the distinct presentation involving two fingers rather than a complete limb. Following amputation, the patient experienced immediate relief, with nightmares ceasing, emotional distress subsiding, and improved functionality. This case highlights the potential efficacy and patient satisfaction associated with elective amputation in specific BIID presentations, shedding light on the unique challenges faced by affected individuals and emphasizing the importance of understanding, support, and inclusive healthcare practices.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".