MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052304298 · doi:10.1080/014436121000020484

Vaginal sacrospinous fixation: experience in a district general hospital

2002· article· en· W2052304298 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. R. M. Elghorori, Arbab Ahmed, Meghmala Sadhukhan, H. Al-Taher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyObservational studyVaginal Vault ProlapseGeneral hospitalFixation (population genetics)General surgeryVaginaPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is an observational retrospective study, which included 77 patients who underwent sacrospinous fixation (SSF) over a period of 3 years in a district general hospital. Casenotes were reviewed and all patients were invited to attend a further review appointment (14-49 months). The object was to determine short- and long-term success of SSF,particularly in elderly (28% were > or = 70 years), obese (24.7%) and medically compromised (64.9%) patients. Fifty-two patients (67.5%) had previous gynaecological procedures, while the remaining 25 (32.5%) had no previous surgery. Intra- and postoperative complications were 3.9% and 32.5%, respectively. There was considerable relief of patients' symptoms at both short- and long-term followup, while the rate of recurrence of vault prolapse was 10.3%. Our experience suggests that SSF appears to be a safe and effective procedure, especially for those who may constitute surgical or anaesthetic risks. It has a reasonable success rate, good postoperative recovery and acceptable long-term results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and GynaecologySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207