Single-port access compared with three-port laparoscopic adnexal surgery in a randomized controlled trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Scar-related cosmetic outcomes were compared prospectively between conventional three-port and single-port access laparoscopic adnexal gynaecological surgery. METHODS: Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to a single- or three-port surgery group. Scar-related outcomes were evaluated at 1 month, 6 months and 1 year. Scars were assessed by an independent observer using the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS). All patients were asked about pain related to the scar and scar satisfaction; results were recorded using a numerical rating scale. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were enrolled between June 2010 and June 2011. Demographic and surgical outcomes did not differ between the groups. mVSS results were similar in the two groups at each follow-up point. The scar satisfaction profile measured at 1 month showed no significant difference between the groups, but the single-port access group had better results than the conventional group at all other follow-up timepoints. CONCLUSION: Cosmetic outcome was better for single-port than for three-port adnexal gynaecological surgery at 6-month and 1-year follow-up.
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 it