Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To highlight the escalating need for enhanced education on foreskin care among patients and health care providers, particularly as neonatal circumcision rates decline. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: This review is based on findings from a MEDLINE database search of the literature on care of the penile foreskin, foreskin complications, and their management. Articles were reviewed for relevance and quality of evidence was provided with the level of evidence in parentheses throughout the review. When available, evidence from systematic reviews, relevant clinical guidelines, and randomized controlled trials were incorporated. In the absence of high-level evidence, expert opinion on the topic was provided. MAIN MESSAGE: As neonatal circumcision rates decline, the importance of educating patients on proper foreskin care becomes increasingly vital to avoid complications later in life. This review highlights the role of primary care providers as crucial resources for patient education. Based on the available evidence, the following are reviewed: rates of circumcision in Canada and current circumcision practices; recommendations for routine foreskin care; and common preputial complications including urinary tract infections, pathologic phimosis, balanoposthitis, penile lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans), and penile cancer. CONCLUSION: This review explored current trends and practices in circumcision, routine foreskin care, and common complications seen in uncircumcised patients. There is a need for education that extends to allied health professionals working with patients in health care facilities. Primary care providers have an important role in facilitating education for patients and providing recommendations on proper penile hygiene.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.009 |
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".