An impedance-controlled system for endometrial ablation: five-year follow-up of 107 patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, efficacy and data durability of the NovaSure endometrial ablation system 5 years after the procedure in women with severe menorrhagia secondary to dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB). STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, single-arm, pilot study of 107 women undergoing endometrial ablation using the NovaSure system (Canadian Task Force classification II-1) at a specialized center for gynecologic endoscopy. The premenopausal women, with menorrhagia secondary to DUB unresponsive to medical therapy, had completed childbearing. A Pictorial Blood-Loss Assessment Chart was used to conduct a posttreatment evaluation of menstrual blood loss and bleeding pattern. Ablation was performed without any type of endometrial pretreatment. RESULTS: No intraoperative or postoperative complications were observed. Treatment time averaged 94 seconds. At the 5-year follow-up, amenorrhea was reported by 75% of patients and successful reduction of bleeding was achieved in 98%, with hysterectomy and retreatment rates of 2.9% and 3.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Long-term clinical results indicate that the NovaSure system is a safe and effective method for treatment of women with menorrhagia secondary to DUB. NovaSure yields high amenorrhea and success rates and low surgical reintervention rates 5 years after treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".