MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Benign Myometrial Conditions: Leiomyomas and Adenomyosis

2003· review· en· W2074533801 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdenomyosisMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyHysterectomyUterine leiomyomaLeiomyomaVascularityGynecologyEndometriosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leiomyomas and adenomyosis are common benign myometrial conditions. Although their symptoms overlap, traditional treatment of these two entities differs; thus, making the correct diagnosis is critical. Specifically, uterine-conserving therapy is well established for many women with symptomatic leiomyomas, whereas hysterectomy is the treatment for debilitating adenomyosis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most accurate modality for identifying leiomyomas and adenomyosis. T2-weighted sequences often are diagnostic. For leiomyomas, MRI reliably identifies their number, size, and location. These features help triage patients to appropriate therapy. For adenomyosis, MRI establishes the diagnosis in cases of equivocal or nondiagnostic ultrasounds. MRI also has been used to confirm an ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis when curative surgery is being considered. Intravenous gadolinium chelates are not necessary to make the diagnosis of either adenomyosis or leiomyomas, but it provides useful information about vascularity of lesions, a factor that may impact the type of treatment undertaken.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.329 · 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