Laparoscopic treatment of polycystic ovaries: is its place diminishing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide a critical discussion on the place of laparoscopic ovarian drilling and medical treatment with metformin for polycystic ovary syndrome. RECENT FINDINGS: Laparoscopic ovarian drilling remains popular. It is associated with an ovulation rate of approximately 80% and a pregnancy rate of 50-60% within 1 year of the procedure. The technique results in a decrease in ovarian stromal blood flow. An increasing amount of data, however, suggests that treatment with metformin is equally as effective. The use of metformin in pregnancy appears to be safe; it decreases the miscarriage rate and possibly the incidence of gestational diabetes. SUMMARY: Laparoscopic ovarian drilling and metformin improve ovulatory dysfunction and pregnancy rate to a similar extent. The advantages of metformin continue beyond conception. It reduces the miscarriage rate and also decreases the likelihood of developing gestational diabetes. A randomized trial comparing the effects of metformin and laparoscopic ovarian drilling in women with polycystic ovary syndrome is recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".