Histologic Examination of "Fascia" Used in Colporrhaphy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a histologic examination of tissue identified as fascia and used during colporrhaphy. METHODS: In patients undergoing primary anterior and posterior colporrhaphy, biopsies were taken from three surgically distinct vaginal tissues types: the wall, the "fascia," and areolar tissue. The biopsies were placed in formalin, identified numerically, and sent to pathology for staining with hematoxylin-eosin, Masson trichrome for collagen, Movat for elastin, and immunoperoxidase stain for actin in smooth muscle. Simultaneous photographs were taken of the biopsy sites. The histologic diagnosis was compared with the surgical diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 60 samples were taken from five women. The specimens from two of these patients were disqualified. The pathologist made the following histologic diagnosis for each type of surgical specimen: vaginal wall, mucosa and underlying connective tissue; fascia, moderately dense connective tissue with smooth muscle; areolar tissue, loose connective tissue. The histologic appearance of the "fascia" was indistinguishable from the deeper aspects of the vaginal wall. It was composed of the same proportions of smooth muscle, elastin, and collagen. Using the histologic appearance as the "gold standard," the accuracy of the surgical diagnosis was: "vaginal wall," 12 of 12 (100%); "fascia," seven of 12 (58%); and "areolar tissue," eight of 12 (67%). CONCLUSIONS: The surgical "fascia" used during colporrhaphy consists of moderately dense connective tissue with smooth muscle similar to the deep aspects of the vaginal wall, is the same in both the anterior and posterior compartments, and is an artifact of the surgical dissection used to separate the vaginal wall from the underlying organs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".