Etiology and Fertility Preservation Treatment for Young Women with Endometrial Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the risk factors for endometrial cancer in young women as well as fertility preservation options. Design: A literature search using the key words fertility preservation, endometrial cancer, uterine cancer, and risk factors was conducted in MEDLINE,® EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Results: Etiologic factors for development of endometrial cancer were discussed. All available conservative options to avoid hysterectomy were also discussed. Treatment outcome for young women with endometrial cancer treated by systemic progestins was summarized. Conclusions: In women with early stage well-differentiated endometrial cancer, conservative treatment with progestins should be considered. It is important to note that this is a temporary treatment that has to be followed by a definitive treatment after completion of the patient's family. Proper counseling and close follow-up are mandatory. Because of the rarity of the disease in young women, a multicenter trial or a registry is needed. Another issue is to identify which group of patients will respond to progestin therapy, perhaps by molecular and gene analysis. (J GYNECOL SURG 28:280)
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".