MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982427992 · doi:10.1159/000367659

Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery for Benign Ovarian Cystectomies

2015· article· en· W1982427992 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed A. Bedaiwy, David Sheyn, Lily Eghdami, F. AbdelHafez, Jessica Volsky, Amanada Nickles-Fader, Pedro F. Escobar

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecologic and Obstetric Investigation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaparoscopyCosmesisCystectomySurgeryGroup BBlood lossUrologyInternal medicineBladder cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Single-port laparoscopy (LESS) utilizes a single, multichannel port in an attempt to decrease postoperative pain, while enhancing cosmesis and minimizing the potential risks and morbidities associated with the multiple ports used in conventional laparoscopy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study examining three tertiary care referral centers. From September 2009 until March 2013, 31 patients with ovarian cystic lesions were treated using the LESS technique. A control group of 57 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy was included for comparison. RESULTS: All patients underwent a technically successful cystectomy. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean operative time or estimated blood loss between the two groups. Narcotic use during the recovery period was reported in less patients in the LESS group than in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The LESS technique can be used to safely perform cystectomies on women with benign ovarian cysts. Additional investigation is needed to evaluate the safety, cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes of this new approach.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecologic and Obstetric InvestigationSame topicMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesFrench-language works237,207