Unclear whether energy-based vessel sealing in vaginal hysterectomy is superior to conventional clamping and suturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Lakeman M, The S, Schellart R, et al. Electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing versus conventional clamping and suturing for vaginal hysterectomy: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2012;119:1473–82.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] Although vaginal hysterectomy (VH) is the preferred route for treatment of benign disease,1 it can be technically challenging. Energy-based vessel-sealing devices (EBVSD) allow for rapid sequential tissue and vessel sealing and transection of the vascular pedicle in one handheld tool.2 A recent meta-analysis suggested that EBVSDs may decrease operating time, blood loss and hospital stay, but results were limited due to the quality of included studies.3 This multicentre randomised controlled trial of 100 women, comparing the Ligasure™ bipolar vessel-sealing device with conventional suturing for VH was performed in eight academic centres in the Netherlands. The primary objective of the study was to compare the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBJOG%26rft.volume%253D119%26rft.spage%253D1473%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1111%252Fj.1471-0528.2012.03484.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22925365%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03484.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=22925365&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F18%2F5%2F180.atom
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | medium |
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 | 0.023 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.007 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".