MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075921263 · doi:10.1159/000184679

Patient Satisfaction after Laparoscopic Total or Supracervical Hysterectomy

2008· article· en· W2075921263 on OpenAlex
Souzan Kafy, Baydaa Alsannan, Nadia Kabli, Togas Tulandi

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

VenueGynecologic and Obstetric Investigation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHysterectomyLaparoscopic hysterectomyPatient satisfactionRetrospective cohort studySignificant differenceGynecological surgerySurgeryGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.218 · 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