Long-Term Surveillance Is Required for All Women Treated for Cervical Adenocarcinoma In Situ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the recurrence rate of disease in women treated for cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (ACIS) by either hysterectomy or conservative surgical management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients with a histopathologic diagnosis of ACIS or glandular dysplasia were identified in a retrospective clinicopathological review. Sixty-seven of the 100 patients were managed conservatively by local excision and were followed up for a mean period of 59 months (range, 1-222 months). The remaining 33 patients underwent hysterectomy as the primary management method and were followed up for a mean of 88 months (range, 1-248 months). If there was histologic documentation of ACIS or invasive adenocarcinoma more than 1 year after treatment, this was considered a recurrence. RESULTS: A total of four recurrences were noted in the 100 patients, three in the conservatively managed group and one in the hysterectomy group. Two late recurrences were noted at 97 and 153 months, one each in the conservatively managed and hysterectomy groups. CONCLUSIONS: Women who have been treated for cervical ACIS require long-term surveillance for at least 10 years regardless of whether they have undergone hysterectomy or conservative management.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".