Recent advances in uterine fibroid embolization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the literature on uterine embolization for fibroids published in 2004 and 2005. RECENT FINDINGS: During the last two years, our understanding of the outcome of uterine fibroid embolization has increased. The outcomes are comparable to those that occur after hysterectomy. Health-related quality-of-life studies have confirmed the positive impact of the procedure. Improvement in menorrhagia has been quantified using the alkaline hematin method, objectively confirming the outcome. Recovery is also better understood and quantified, with most patients experiencing only moderate pain over the first few days after embolization. In two pregnancy-outcome studies, an increased frequency of cesarean section occurred and possibly a greater likelihood of abnormal placentation, although the data are too few to draw conclusions at this time. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as the primary tool for assessing the potential of complications following the procedure, and our understanding of vaginal discharge and uterine infarction has been increased as a result of its use. SUMMARY: Within the last few years, uterine embolization has become an accepted therapy for uterine fibroids. The increase in understanding gained in recent years has helped to confirm the effectiveness and relative tolerability of this therapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".