Endometrial Thermal Balloon Ablation Using a High Temperature, Pulsed System: A Mathematical Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new endometrial thermal balloon ablation treatment for menorrhagia is modeled mathematically to predict its efficacy and safety. A device preheats a fluid to 173 degrees C within a reservoir external to the uterus, and then pulses this fluid without further heating between the reservoir and the balloon for 2.1 min of treatment time. The model predicted this treatment to result in consistent immediate tissue death (coagulation) depths of 3.4 +/- 0.1 mm for uterine cavities of 7 to 26 mL, and that eventual necrosis (tissue death that would occur 1-5 days post burn) may occur to depths of 6.5 +/- 0.2 mm. Whereas, burn depths varied with uterine cavity volume when a low temperature treatment (constant 75 degrees C for 15 min) was modeled (2.3-2.9 mm and 6.8-8.2 mm, for immediate tissue death and eventual necrosis respectively). Similarly, the high temperature, pulsed treatment was less sensitive to blood perfusion rate than the low temperature treatment. Predicted eventual necrosis depth was 1.5 mm less for the high temperature, pulsed treatment than that predicted for a low temperature treatment (constant 87 degrees C for 7 min) for the same immediate tissue death depth (3.5 mm), indicating that the new high temperature treatment may result in less damage to non targeted tissues.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".