Surgical Staging of Early Stage Endometrial Cancer: Comparison Between Laparotomy and Laparoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare the laparotomy (LT) and laparoscopy (LS) in patients who undergone surgical staging for early stage endometrium cancer. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected and analyzed for amount of intraoperative bleeding, complication rates, total resected and laterality specific number of lymph nodes and duration of operation in patients operated with either LT or LS. RESULTS: Seventy-nine stage I endometrium cancer patients were found to be eligible for the trial purposes: 58 (73.4%) treated by LT and 21 (26.6%) treated by LS. The number of lymph nodes was similar in LT (8.9 ± 5.3) and LS (9.2 ± 4.8) (P = 0.8). In LT group, there was no difference in the number of lymph nodes between the right and left sides (10 ± 5.8 and 8.7 ± 4.8 respectively, P = 0.19); in LS group, the number of lymph nodes resected from the right side was higher than the left side (9.8 ± 5 and 7 ± 3.5 respectively, P = 0.039). The amount of intraoperative bleeding and hospitalization period were significantly higher in LT group. Seventy-nine patients had a median follow-up of 30 months. The two groups were similar for disease-free survival (P = 0.46, log rank test). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the two methods in terms of number of total resected lymph nodes. In early stage endometrial carcinoma, LS has provided adequate staging and similar survival rates with LT.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".