Sonographic Findings in Pathology of the Penis
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
Introduction: In this article, we describe the sonographic appearance of the normal penis and define the features of three pathologies. Recognition of anatomy and the normal sonographic appearance serves as the baseline for sonographers to become proficient in completing a thorough evaluation. Methods: This case series will discuss three pathological processes in the penis: Peyronie disease, low-flow priapism, and an infected penile epidermoid inclusion cyst. Clinical presentations, sonographic findings, and tips on obtaining diagnostic images will be described. Results: Sonographic examination of the penis, though well established in the literature, can be a challenging exam for sonographers, given the limited exposure in most ultrasound training programs and in daily practice. We spoke with many sonographers to determine their experiences in this area of sonography in order to provide helpful advice and scanning tips. Included are normal penile anatomical appearances as well as sonographic findings in three pathologies. We will provide suggestions on how to make patients comfortable during an exam that most find compromising. Discussion: While sonography for penile pathology can be challenging, it is a valuable tool for diagnosis and treatment. This article aims to equip sonographers with a review of anatomy, physiology and pathology of the penis. This guide outlines the sonographic features of normal anatomy and three pathological conditions encountered in routine sonographic practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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