Saline instillation sonohysterography test after normal baseline transvaginal sonography results in infertility patients. Is it justified?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate whether there is additional value for saline instillation sonohysterography (SIS) as a routine screening tool when baseline transvaginal sonography (TVS) is normal. METHODS: Two-hundred ninety four infertility patients underwent baseline TVS and were categorised according to the results. TVS findings were negative in study group (n = 124) and positive (any abnormalities) in control group (n = 170). All the patients were further investigated by SIS. Hysteroscopy was performed whenever SIS results were suspicious. Our main outcome measure was accuracy of SIS in detecting intracavitary lesions using pathology reports as gold standard. RESULTS: In the study group, out of 124 SIS tests, 13 (10.4%) showed positive findings and were further investigated by hysteroscopy. Three out of the 13 (23.0%) had subsequent positive hysteroscopy findings, however, no (0.0%) abnormality was found on pathologic examination. In the control group, out of 170 SIS tests, 62 (36.4%) showed positive findings, and were further investigated by hysteroscopy. Forty-two cases out of the 62 (67.7%) had subsequent positive hysteroscopic findings. Pathological examination was positive in 35 out of the 42 (83.3%) positive hysteroscopies. CONCLUSION: Routine SIS for patients with normal TVS did not contribute additional findings. However, in patients with any suspicious findings on TVS (including extracavitary lesions), SIS was beneficial.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".