Expectant or Surgical Management of Miscarriage: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirteen women who presented to the Early Pregnancy and Gynaecology Assessment Unit of the authors’ institution with an incomplete miscarriage were offered the choice of surgical treatment or expectant management. The options were explained to the patients after ultrasound diagnosis. Five women each chose surgery and expectant management, and 3 tried expectant management but eventually underwent surgical treatment. An average of 5 weeks after the initial contact, the women were interviewed in depth about their experience. Women who chose expectant management expressed a desire to have a “natural” experience with natural healing, or they preferred to avoid surgery. Surgical treatment was chosen by women who were anxious to have the experience over with and who wanted to return to a normal life as quickly as possible. In both groups, some patients felt that they could have used more time and more information to make the treatment decision. Women in each group had similar experiences with bleeding and pain before coming to the early pregnancy unit, but women who opted for surgical management reported quick resolution of their symptoms (Table 1). Women who had expectant management reported continued heavy bleeding with severe pain. Some did not feel prepared for the experience. Three patients who chose expectant management decided to undergo surgery when the pain and bleeding continued. Both groups reported strong emotional support from family and friends, but some in the expectant management group said that support diminished after several days. Most patients who underwent surgery reported good emotional support from the hospital personnel.TABLE 1: Themes and categories
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".