MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microwave endometrial ablation (MEA<sup>TM</sup>): a safe technique? Complication data from a prospective series of 1400 cases

2000· article· en· W2075877480 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David E. Parkin

Bibliographic record

VenueGynaecological Endoscopy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometrial ablationMedicineComplicationAblationIncidence (geometry)Microwave ablationProspective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To determine the safety of microwave endometrial ablation when used for the treatment of excessive menstrual loss. Design Prospective observational study of all microwave endometrial ablations, describing all the complications associated with this method. Setting A total of 13 gynaecological units in both teaching and general hospitals in the United Kingdom and Canada. Results In 1433 cases there was only one major complication, a small bowel burn, giving an incidence of 0.7/1000. There were few minor complications. Conclusion Microwave endometrial ablation appears to be safer than hysteroscopic methods of endometrial ablation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0080.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

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

Citations25
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynaecological EndoscopySame topicUterine Myomas and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207