The Place Of Appendectomy in Women with Chronic Pelvic Pain and Pelvic Endometriosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the role of appendectomy in patients with pelvic pain and endometriosis. Design: This was a systematic review. Methods: A literature search in MEDLINE,® EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was performed, using the key words appendiceal endometriosis, pelvic pain, endometriosis, and appendectomy. Results: The prevalence of appendiceal endometriosis in women with endometriosis ranges between 9.5% and 44.3%. Removal of the appendix is associated with complete pain relief in these patients. Conclusions: Removal of a grossly abnormal appendix is associated with pain relief in approximately 90% of cases. Accordingly, women with chronic pelvic pain should be counseled appropriately before surgery, and the surgeon should perform a thorough examination of the appendix during laparoscopy. If the appendix looks abnormal, laparoscopic appendectomy is warranted. (J GYNECOL SURG 27:253)
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 | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".