Report on Repeated Mifepristone Treatment for Uterine Fibroids or Endometriosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: No information is available on how repeated administration of mifepristone could affect women ’ s health. Methods: A total of 101 and 36 subjects who participated in up to 2 and 3 mifepristone trials to treat endometriosis or uterine fibroids, respectively, carried out at the “ Eusebio Hernandez ” Hospital, Havana, Cuba. Results: Subjects who repeated mifepristone to treat fibroids did so for 7.3 ± 2.5 months, minimum and maximum of 6 and 15 months, respectively. The average rest interval was 9.7 ± 6.2 months, minimum and maximum of 3 and 30 months, respectively. In subjects repeating mifepristone for endometriosis, the average was 18 ± 2.0, with a minimum and maximum of 12 and 24 months, respectively. The average rest interval was 8.3 ± 5.3 months, 95% CI = 7.6 - 8.9, minimum and maximum of 3 and 30 months, respectively. No change in women ’ s health was detected months after termination of final mifepristone treatment. Conclusions: Repeating low doses mifepristone treatment up to 3 - 4 times for 3, 6 or 9 months duration with variable rest intervals between sessions, did not seem to involve any risk to health. More studies to confirm the long-term safety of repeated low dosage mifepristone are mandatory. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jcgo148e
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".