MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974851919 · doi:10.1055/s-2007-970050

Surgical Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy

2007· review· en· W1974851919 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Reproductive Medicine · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalpingostomyMedicineEctopic pregnancyPregnancySalpingectomyHeterotopic pregnancyMethotrexateObstetricsFallopian tubeInterstitial pregnancyLaparoscopyCervical pregnancyGynecologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most cases of ectopic pregnancy, medical treatment with methotrexate is successful. However, some cases still require surgery and laparoscopy is an effective approach. The candidates for surgical treatment include women who are not suitable to or have failed methotrexate treatment, those with heterotopic pregnancy, or those who are hemodynamically unstable. In women of reproductive age with tubal pregnancy, salpingostomy is the preferred surgical method. Conversely, salpingectomy is a better treatment for women with severely damaged fallopian tube, recurrent ectopic pregnancy in the same tube, uncontrolled bleeding after salpingostomy, large tubal pregnancy (> 5 cm), heterotopic pregnancy, and for those who have completed their family. Similar to treatment of a tubal pregnancy, cervical and interstitial pregnancy could be treated medically first. Most abdominal pregnancies are diagnosed late in pregnancy. However, when the diagnosis is made early, laparoscopic removal of the pregnancy should be performed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.306 · 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