Regimens of misoprostol with mifepristone for early medical abortion: a randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, adverse effects and acceptability of the three most common misoprostol regimens used with mifepristone for medical abortion. DESIGN: Randomised nonblinded trial. SETTING: Three clinics associated with major research universities in Canada; two in major urban areas and one in a periurban area. POPULATION: Women of reproductive age. METHODS: Consenting women presenting for abortion services with gestations less than 56 days and who met inclusion criteria were given 200 mg mifepristone orally and then randomised into three misoprostol study groups: (group I) 400 micrograms of oral misoprostol, (group II) 600 micrograms of oral misoprostol, and (group III) 800 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol. Misoprostol was self-administered at home 24-48 hours following mifepristone, and participants were instructed to take a second similar misoprostol dose at 24 hours after the initial dose if bleeding was less than a normal menstrual period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Successful abortion without surgery was 94.1%, with no significant differences across the three study groups (94.7% in group I, 93.4% in group II, and 94.3% in group III; P= 0.975). RESULTS: Efficacy and adverse effects did not differ significantly across the three study groups. Pain increased significantly across the study and the gestational age groups and was associated with lower acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a range of safe and effective options for early medical abortion with mifepristone including a choice between oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".