MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414997164 · doi:10.1016/j.epsc.2025.103122

Fetal inguinoscrotal hernia: A case series

2025· article· en· W4414997164 on OpenAlexaff
Aliya Y. Ortaaslan, Françoise Rypens, Dickens Saint-Vil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Surgery Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrotumInguinal herniaHerniaFetusRectumGestationScrotal Pain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inguinoscrotal hernias (ISH) are common in neonates but rarely seen in the fetal period, with only 21 reported cases to date. We present two cases of fetal ISH diagnosed antenatally, each initially misidentified. A 25-year-old woman (G6P3A2) was referred for a solid scrotal mass detected at 34 weeks of gestation and suspected to be teratoma. Repeat Ultrasound (US) at 35 weeks, diagnosed an isolated right-sided inguinoscrotal hernia containing peristaltic bowel loops and mesenteric vascularization without any other anomaly. Patient was born in a peripheral hospital before ultimately undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy at 10 days of life. In a 27-year-old woman (G1P0), US at 22 weeks revealed bilateral nephromegaly. Biweekly follow-up was performed. At 33 weeks, follow-up US detected a distended rectum containing heterogeneous material. Fetal MRI confirmed bilateral nephromegaly, normal rectal content, and diagnosed a right inguinoscrotal hernia with collapsed bowel loops in the scrotum and an associated left hydrocele. The infant was delivered by cesarean section at 36 weeks at our tertiary pediatric hospital. The infant underwent bilateral nephrectomy and simultaneous bilateral inguinoscrotal hernia repair at 2 months of age. Fetal inguinoscrotal hernia is rare but should be considered in the differential for a fetal scrotal or perineal mass.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Surgery Case ReportsSame topicHernia repair and managementFrench-language works237,207