Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most common indication for hysterectomy is uterine fibroids. It is estimated that approximately one-third of all hysterectomies are done for problems related to uterine fibroids. The clinical indications vary from merely the presence of fibroid to menorrhagia, pressure symptoms, infertility, or habitual abortion. In many instances they are asymptomatic, but in some women they may be associated with heavy menstrual bleeding, infertility, pressure symptoms, and miscarriage. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, and could be total or subtotal. The approach of the procedure is determined by the clinical situation, the preference and the expertise of the surgeon, and to a certain extent by the patient's desire. In this review we will discuss the risks and benefits of different types of hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine fibroid. Abdominal hysterectomy Total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) remains the conventional treatment for uterine fibroids in women who have completed their family. In the United States, 75% of all hysterectomies are done by laparotomy, which is threefold higher than that for vaginal hysterectomy (VH). TAH is a major operation with three to five days of hospitalization and a convalescence time of several weeks. It is associated with major morbidity in 3% and minor morbidity in about 14% of cases. However, it is a well-received operation with as many as 85–90% of women being satisfied with the procedure and reporting improved quality of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.013 |
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".