Screening Pelvic Examinations in Asymptomatic, Average-Risk Adult Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters16 December 2014Screening Pelvic Examinations in Asymptomatic, Average-Risk Adult WomenJohn C. Jennings, MD and Jennifer Blake, MD, MSCJohn C. Jennings, MDFrom American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, and The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. and Jennifer Blake, MD, MSCFrom American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, and The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/L14-5034 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:As important as evidence-based decision making is to medical practice, creating guidelines based on limited and low-quality evidence is inappropriate. Lack of evidence does not mean lack of value. The ability of pelvic examination to help gynecologists diagnose and treat patients for such conditions as vulvar disease, atrophy, prolapse, incontinence, and sexual dysfunction clearly justifies its role in gynecologic practice.Bloomfield and colleagues' evidence report (1), done in conjunction with the American College of Physicians' clinical practice guidelines about pelvic examination, relied solely on evidence regarding its use to detect noncervical cancer or pelvic inflammatory disease or ...References1. Bloomfield HE, Olson A, Greer N, Cantor A, MacDonald R, Rutks I, et al. Screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, average-risk adult women: an evidence report for a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:46-53. [PMID: 24979449] doi:10.7326/M13-2881 LinkGoogle Scholar2. Adonakis GL, Paraskevaidis E, Tsiga S, Seferiadis K, Lolis DE. A combined approach for the early detection of ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;65:221-5. [PMID: 8730628] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, and The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=L14-0484. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoScreening Pelvic Examinations in Asymptomatic, Average-Risk Adult Women: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians Hanna E. Bloomfield , Andrew Olson , Nancy Greer , Amy Cantor , Roderick MacDonald , Indulis Rutks , and Timothy J. Wilt Screening Pelvic Examinations in Asymptomatic, Average-Risk Adult Women Hanna E. Bloomfield , Andrew Olson , and Timothy J. Wilt Screening Pelvic Examinations in Asymptomatic, Average-Risk Adult Women Hanna E. Bloomfield , Andrew Olson , and Timothy J. Wilt Metrics 16 December 2014Volume 161, Issue 12Page: 924KeywordsDisclosureIncontinenceInformation storage and retrievalMorbidityPelvic inflammatory diseasePopulation statisticsSexual dysfunctionSurgeryTreatment guidelines ePublished: 16 December 2014 Issue Published: 16 December 2014 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2014 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".