Fertility following radical, conservative‐surgical or medical treatment for tubal pregnancy: a population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors influencing the choice of treatment for ectopic pregnancy and to compare the subsequent fertility rates of radical, conservative-surgical or medical treatments. DESIGN: Population-based study of 835 ectopic pregnancies registered between 1992 and 1996. SETTING: Auvergne Ectopic Pregnancy Register (France). SAMPLE: Four hundred and seventy-six women with tubal ectopic pregnancy who were not using contraception at the time of conception. Subsequent fertility was studied for the 291 women who attempted to conceive again. METHODS: Comparison of reproductive outcomes according to ectopic pregnancy treatment. Cumulative fertility curves were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier estimator and compared by log rank test for univariate analysis and by Cox regression to take into account confounding variables. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Recurrence and fertility rates after ectopic pregnancy. RESULTS: The first treatment given was 'radical' for 178 women (37%), 'conservative-surgical' for 262 (55%), and 'medical' for 35 (8%). The treatment failed in 1% for radical treatment, 5% for conservative-surgical treatment, and 36% for medical treatment. The two-year cumulative rate of recurrence was 27% with no significant difference between treatments. For women with previous infertility factors (in particular diseased contralateral tube), the treatments differed significantly, with the rate of intrauterine pregnancy lower for radical treatment and higher for medical treatment than for conservative-surgical treatment. For women with no infertility factor, there was no significant difference between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: These results should be confirmed in a controlled trial. The results of this study provide the elements necessary to plan such a trial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".