Patient Satisfaction after Laparoscopic Total or Supracervical Hysterectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate patient satisfaction after laparoscopic supracervical (LASH) or total hysterectomy (TLH). METHODS: Retrospective study of patient satisfaction after LASH or TLH. RESULTS: We studied 40 cases of LASH and another 40 of TLH. The age of the patients, marital status, education level and employment status between the two groups were comparable. Both LASH and TLH results in improvement of general health and symptoms. However, there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction with surgery, in general health, body and self-images, and sexual satisfaction between the LASH and TLH group. Before surgery, patients in the TLH group experienced more pain with a sexual relationship than those in the LASH group. The difference became non-significant after surgery. There was no difference in urinary or gastrointestinal symptoms after either type of hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Both LASH and TLH result in improvement of general health and symptoms. Body and self-images, sexual function, gastrointestinal and urinary functions after LASH or TLH are comparable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".