MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401958005 · doi:10.3390/healthcare12171716

Priapism Presentations in a Saudi Arabian Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study at a Tertiary Care Hospital

2024· article· en· W4401958005 on OpenAlexaff
Baraa Alghalyini, Abdul Rehman Zia Zaidi, Kanza Atif, Noorah Mosharraf, Hala Tamim

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersAlfaisal University
KeywordsTertiary carePriapismEmergency departmentRetrospective cohort studyMedicineMedical emergencyEmergency medicineFamily medicineNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine the distribution, clinical characteristics, and management of priapism in a Saudi Arabian tertiary care setting to provide a regional perspective. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This retrospective chart review included 29 male patients presenting with priapism at a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from January 2011 to June 2023. Data were collected on patient demographics, clinical presentation, treatment modalities, and outcomes. RESULTS: The study found recurrent episodes of priapism in many patients, with a significant number associated with hematological diseases, notably sickle cell disease. Most treatments involved non-surgical methods. A notable finding was the correlation between the duration of priapism episodes and the likelihood of hospital admissions, suggesting that prolonged episodes often required more extensive medical attention. CONCLUSIONS: Priapism often presents as a chronic and recurrent condition requiring personalized management strategies. This study emphasizes the importance of recognizing regional occurrence patterns to enhance the management of priapism and suggests a need for further research in regions where this condition is less common.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207