Comparison of abortions induced by methotrexate or mifepristone followed by misoprostol*1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, side effects, and acceptability of medical abortions induced by methotrexate and misoprostol with abortions induced by mifepristone and misoprostol. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, nonblinded, controlled trial comparing 50 mg/m(2) of methotrexate followed 4-6 days later by 800 microgram of vaginal misoprostol with 600 mg of oral mifepristone followed 36-48 hours by 400 microgram of oral misoprostol. RESULTS: There were 518 women in the methotrexate group and 524 women in the mifepristone group. In the methotrexate group, 21 women required suction curretage, two for continuing pregnancy, eight because of physician request (usually for excessive bleeding), and 11 because of patient request. In the mifepristone group, 22 women needed surgical termination, 17 because of physician request, and five because of patient request. By day 8, only 386 (74.5%) in the methotrexate group had completed the abortion compared with 474 (90.5%) in the mifepristone group, and the mean number of days from beginning to completion was 7.1 for methotrexate and 3.3 for mifepristone (P </=.001). There were no differences in complications, and side effects were similar. Acceptance was slightly higher with mifepristone (88.0%) than with methotrexate (83.2%). CONCLUSION: Abortions induced with mifepristone completed faster than those induced with methotrexate, but the overall success rates, side effects, and complications were similar. Acceptance rates were slightly higher with mifepristone than methotrexate (P =.03).
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".