Interstitial Pregnancy: Results Generated From the Society of Reproductive Surgeons Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize management of interstitial pregnancy and its outcome among 32 reported cases in the world. METHODS: From 1999 to 2002, 32 cases of interstitial pregnancy were reported to the registry of the Society of Reproductive Surgeons. The participants completed a five-page questionnaire regarding when and how diagnosis was made, the characteristics of the pregnancy, treatment modalities, and subsequent reproductive outcome. RESULTS: History of ipsilateral salpingectomy was encountered in 37.5% of patients, and the diagnosis was made by ultrasound in 71.4% of the patients. Eight women were treated with methotrexate either systemically (n = 4), locally under ultrasound guidance (n = 2), or under laparoscopic guidance (n = 2). Eleven patients were treated by laparoscopy and 13 by laparotomy. Three patients failed systemic methotrexate treatment and subsequently required surgery. Persistently elevated serum beta human chorionic gonadotropin levels were found in one patient after laparoscopic cornual excision, and she was successfully treated with methotrexate. Fourteen cases (43.7%) of rupture of interstitial pregnancy were found. This included five cases (15.6%) of heterotopic pregnancy; all were the results of in vitro fertilization, and all ruptured at the time of diagnosis. Subsequent pregnancy was achieved in ten patients. No uterine rupture was encountered during pregnancy or labor. CONCLUSION: Ipsilateral salpingectomy, previous ectopic pregnancy, and in vitro fertilization are predisposing factors for interstitial pregnancy. Contrary to previous belief, rupture of interstitial pregnancy occurs relatively early in pregnancy. In selected patients, laparoscopic cornual excision is a viable treatment option.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".