MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150628971 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.09.009

Alternatives to mifepristone for early medical abortion

2007· review· en· W2150628971 on OpenAlexaff
Nilda Moreno-Ruiz, Lynn Borgatta, Susan Yanow, Nathalie Kapp, Ellen Wiebe, Beverly Winikoff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisoprostolMifepristoneMedicineMedical abortionMethotrexateAbortionObstetricsPregnancyAbortifacientGynecologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review published reports of first-trimester medical abortion regimens that do not include mifepristone. METHODS: Reports listed in Pubmed and Medline on prospective and controlled trials of the efficacy of misoprostol, alone or associated with methotrexate, for first-trimester abortion were analyzed if they included more than 100 participants and were published since 1990. RESULTS: The efficacy of regimens using misoprostol alone ranged from 84% to 96%, and when misoprostol was used with methotrexate the efficacy ranged from 70% to 97%. Efficacy rates were influenced by follow-up interval. Treatment for infection, bleeding, and incomplete abortion were infrequent with both methods (0.3%-5%). CONCLUSION: Alone or in combination with methotrexate, misoprostol is an efficacious alternative to mifepristone for the medical termination of pregnancy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207