MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pelvic adhesions and pelvic pain: opinions on cause and effect relationship and when to surgically intervene

2001· article· en· W2141685280 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Diamond, Eric J. Bieber

Bibliographic record

VenueGynaecological Endoscopy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePelvic painAdhesionUterusSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the absence of definitive data, we sought to determine the consensus on the contribution of adhesions to pelvic pain. Impressions about the role of adhesion location, extent, and severity of pelvic pain, were surveyed among 13 gynaecological surgeons. They were asked whether adhesions covering specific organs to a varying extent would be likely to cause pain significant enough to require pain medication, or to lead a woman to alter her normal activities, and when they would recommend surgery to reduce pelvic pain. Women with dense vascular adhesions covering all of the uterus but not the bowel or adnexal structures were thought to have a 49 ± 9% likelihood of having pelvic pain; this fell to a 34 ± 7% and 18 ± 5% likelihood of pain if 60% or 20%, respectively, of the uterus was involved with adhesions. Similar observations were made for adhesions involving the posterior cul‐de‐sac and large bowel. However, adhesions involving the anterior cul‐de‐sac were thought to be less likely to cause pain. Women with total involvement of both tubes and ovaries with dense, vascular adhesions were thought to be 60 ± 9% likely to have pelvic pain; reduction in extent of adhesions to 50% or 25% reduced the prediction of pain to 38 ± 5% and 21 ± 3%, respectively. In contrast, filmy adhesions to both tubes and ovaries, were thought to cause pain in 46 ± 9%, 26 ± 5%, and 13 ± 3% of women, respectively, according to extent. Half the surgeons said they would recommend surgery for patients with pain and dense adhesions involving 15% of both tubes and ovaries; 10 recommended surgery if it was known that adhesions involved 100% of both ovaries and tubes. Surgeons were only slightly less likely to recommend surgery for pain relief for adhesions involving either both tubes or both ovaries or for pain associated with unilateral tubal and ovarian adhesions. For bilateral tube and ovary adhesions, surgery was equally likely to be recommended for relief of pain when adhesions were cohesive and dense; for adhesions which were filmy, surgery was less likely to be recommended. For dense adhesions involving 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of the uterine surface, surgery was recommended by 42%, 58%, 83% and 92% of surgeons, respectively. Posterior cul‐de‐sac involvement resulted in recommendation of surgery by 50%, 83%, 92%, and 100% of surgeons, respectively; however, for corresponding amounts of anterior cul‐de‐sac adhesions, surgery was recommended by only 17%, 33%, 67%, and 75% of surgeons. (1) Adhesions are frequently considered to be a cause of pelvic pain; (2) the likelihood of discomfort is related to location, extent, and to a lesser degree, the severity of adhesions, and (3) adhesiolysis is thought to provide the potential for pain relief.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynaecological EndoscopySame topicIntestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsFrench-language works237,207