MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978922994 · doi:10.1136/bmj.39161.665579.be

Anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism

2007· letter· en· W1978922994 on OpenAlexaff
John W. Eikelboom, Jeffrey S. Ginsberg, Jack Hirsh

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolycystic ovarian diseaseDiathermyInfertilityPregnancy rateGynecologyPregnancyLaparoscopySurgeryPolycystic ovaryObstetricsInternal medicineInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the presentation, different surgical modalities and their outcome in the treatment of polycystic ovarian disease. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out on 66 patients with polycystic ovarian disease. The majority of the cases had a history of infertility for at least 2 years and were known to be clomiphene citrate resistant in the Saudi German Hospital, Jeddah between 1994 and 1998 undergoing laparoscopic ovarian drilling. RESULTS: More than 80% of the patients were below 30 years of age. The majority of cases below 30 years had primary infertility. Irregular cycle was the main clinical presentation in 75% of cases; ovarian volume was more than 5.5cm3 in all of the cases. Diathermy drilling was carried out for 50 patients, laser for 12 patients and wedge resection for 4 patients. The follow-up treatment showed that pregnancy rate was 23%, 38% and 0% in the 3 groups. Cases that failed to conceive had significantly higher luteinizing hormone level. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ovarian drilling using diathermy or laser is effective during the induction of ovulation and increases the pregnancy rate in cases of polycystic ovarian disease resistant to clomiphene citrate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207