Laparoscopic versus ultraminilaparotomic myomectomy for the treatment of large uterine myomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and ultraminilaparotomic procedures for the treatment of large uterine myomas in a retrospective matched-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2) of 32 women with large myomas who underwent laparoscopic myomectomy and 32 women who had ultraminilaparotomic myomectomy (< or =4 cm incision). Myomectomies were successfully performed for all women in both groups, but time to discharge was significantly lower after laparoscopic than after ultraminilaparotomic myomectomy (p = 0.01). Laparoscopic myomectomy seems to be the preferable approach for the treatment of large myomas of > or =5 cm, providing a more rapid recovery compared to the ultraminilaparotomic approach. Ultraminilaparotomy may be a valid alternative in case of laparoconversion instead of the classic laparotomy approach.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".