Improved quality of life is partly explained by fewer symptoms after treatment of fibroids with mifepristone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine mediators of mifepristone treatment on improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among women with symptomatic fibroids. METHODS: The study sample included women with symptomatic uterine fibroids who were treated with 5mg or 2.5mg of mifepristone or placebo. Assessments of uterine size (ultrasound), pain (McGill pain questionnaire), bleeding (diary), anemia (gm/dL), and HRQOL measured using the uterine fibroid symptom quality of life scale were done at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The improvements in HRQOL that could be explained by changes in these clinical factors were assessed. RESULTS: The final sample included 62 women. Treatment with mifepristone was associated with significant improvement in HRQOL, which was explained in part by reduction in pain (28%, P<0.001) and bleeding (18%, P<0.001). Reduction in uterine volume was of marginal significance (P=0.05) and was associated with a decrease in HRQOL (7%). Much of the impact of treatment on HRQOL (61%) remained unexplained in this model. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in HRQOL after treatment with mifepristone are partly explained by improvements in pain and bleeding, but not uterine size. However, most of the improvement in HRQOL is not explained by improvements in these clinical parameters.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".