Is there any correlation between stages of endometriosis and severity of chronic pelvic pain? Possibilities of treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report herein findings on 181 patients, suffering from pelvic endometriosis confirmed by histology, whose main symptom was chronic pelvic pain (CPP). They attended the outpatient clinic at the 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Semmelweis University in Budapest, between 1 January 1995 and 1 January 2000. The extent of pelvic endometriosis was determined on the basis of the 1985 revised scoring system of the American Fertility Society (R-AFS). The short form of the McGill pain questionnaire was used for the evaluation of CPP. After the first operative intervention, therapy with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog was given for 6 months. Second-look laparoscopy was performed 8-10 weeks after the end of GnRH-analog treatment, which was followed by a non-conventionally administered, monophasic oral contraceptive (OC) treatment. In the long term, 118 patients received the non-conventionally administered, monophasic OC treatment, which contained a third-generation progestogen, to be taken continuously for at least 6 months. The other 63 patients who did not receive OC treatment for one reason or another were evaluated as a control group. We analyzed data on CPP before the first surgical intervention, then following therapy with the GnRH analog at the second-look operation, and then after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. We also reviewed potential causes of CPP, especially focused on endometriosis. No correlation was found between the stage of endometriosis according to R-AFS score and the severity of CPP. At the 24-month follow-up after second-look laparoscopy, the non-conventionally administered monophasic OC treatment was found not only to significantly reduce pain scores, but also the required radical operative solution (hysterectomy plus bilateral adnexectomy) for CPP by OC users.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".