Laparoscopic management of cystic adnexal masses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective To analyse all laparoscopic treatment of cystic adnexal tumours in the period 1998–2000. Design Retrospective evaluation of surgical procedures (Canadian Task Force classification III). Setting University department of obstetrics and gynaecology. Patients 427 patients with cystic adnexal masses. Interventions 141 patients underwent an adnectomy/ovariectomy and 286 an ovariectomy, ovarian cyst enucleation or biopsy by operative laparoscopy. Results Laparoscopic treatment was possible in 97% of patients with adnexal masses. In 10 patients (2.3%) a conversion to laparotomy was necessary. Conclusions After careful evaluation, most cases of adnexal mass can be managed laparoscopically. The risk of missing a malignancy is very low. Proper attention to techniques and training reduces complications and the risk of spillage.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.016 | 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 teacher head, 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".