Adding Endometrial Biopsy to Polypectomy: Is It Worthwhile?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to establish the role of adding endometrial biopsy to polypectomy in the diagnosis of intrauterine pathology. Design: The design was a retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). Methods: The study included 133 consecutive patients who underwent hysteroscopic polypectomy with endometrial biopsy from July 1997 through June 2004 at Biocor Hospital. The local Ethics Committee approved the study protocol. Diagnostic hysteroscopy was performed before surgical procedure in all patients. Hysteroscopic diagnosis was compared against standard histopathologic criteria. Endometrial biopsy on the opposite side of the polyp was performed in all cases. Description of the morphologic appearance of the endometrium and polyps, as well as histologic diagnosis, were recorded for all patients. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated and McNemar test was used to test the value of adding biopsy to polypectomy. Results: One hundred and thirty-three polypectomies with conclusive histologic results were analyzed. Mean patient age was 59 years of age (range, 30–85). Endometrial polyp (58.6%) was the main surgical indication. Hysteroscopic view revealed a low sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and cancer. Adding endometrial biopsy significantly increased the diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia and cancer (p = 0.000) as well as of simple hyperplasia (p = 0.008). The most frequent diagnoses obtained by random biopsy in patients with false negative hysteroscopies were simple endometrial hyperplasia (n = 66), followed by atypical endometrial hyperplasia (n = 10), endometrial cancer (n = 3) and myoma (n = 2). Conclusions: Addiing endometrial biopsy to polypectomy significantly increased the diagnosis of concomitant endometrial abnormalities, mainly endometrial hyperplasia and cancer. Therefore, endometrial biopsy should be added to polypectomy. (J GYNECOL SURG 27:67)
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".