Review: levonorgestrel and mifepristone are effective emergency methods for preventing pregnancy after unprotected intercourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cheng L, Gülmezoglu AM, Van Oel CJ, et al . Interventions for emergency contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(3):CD001324. Q Which emergency contraceptive methods are the most effective for preventing pregnancy after unprotected intercourse? ### ![Graphic][1]</img>Data sources: Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2003), Popline, Medline (1966 to April 2003), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1980–2003), CINAHL (1982–2003), Biological abstracts database (1985 to April 2003), Chinese Biological Medical discs (1992 to April 2003), World Health Organization resources (July 2003), Emergency Contraception World Wide Web server (April 2003), contacts with experts and pharmaceutical companies, and bibliographies of relevant articles. ### ![Graphic][2]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials in any language that compared different emergency contraceptive methods or compared 1 method with expectant management or placebo; reported clinical outcomes; and … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".