The Efficacy of Medical and Surgical Treatment of Endometriosis-Associated Infertility and Pelvic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a review of the efficacy of medical and surgical treatment of endometriosis-associated infertility and pelvic pain. Endometriosis is the cause of pelvic pain (dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia) and infertility in more than 35% of women of reproductive age. Complete resolution of endometriosis is not yet possible but therapy has essentially three main objectives: (1) to reduce pain; (2) to increase the possibility of pregnancy; (3) to delay recurrence for as long as possible. It could be concluded that a consensus will probably never be reached on minimal and mild endometriosis. Nevertheless, because the Canadian study reported a large number of cases, we strongly support the view that visible endometriosis must be removed at the time of surgery. In cases of moderate and severe endometriosis-associated infertility, the combined approach (operative laparoscopy with GnRH-a) must be considered as 'first-line' treatment. The mean pregnancy rate of 50% reported in the literature following surgery provides scientific proof that operative treatment should be undertaken first to give our patients the best chance of conceiving naturally.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".