Approach to diagnosis and management of abnormal uterine bleeding.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present a primary care approach to evaluating and managing abnormal uterine bleeding. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Literature searches were conducted on MEDLINE from 1996 to November 2004, EMBASE from 1996 to January 2005, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from the 4th quarter of 2004 to the 3rd quarter of 2005, guideline advisory committee databases, the Canadian Medical Association Infobase, and Clinical Evidence. The quality of evidence ranged from level I to III. MAIN MESSAGE: Premenopausal abnormal uterine bleeding can be ovulatory, anovulatory, or anatomic. A variety of hormonal and nonhormonal treatments are available. Patients' preferences, side effects, and physicians' comfort should be considered when making treatment decisions. One in 4 cases of endometrial carcinoma occur in premenopausal women, so it is important to investigate women with risk factors. While postmenopausal bleeding is most commonly caused by atrophic vaginitis, bleeding should be investigated to rule out endometrial and cervical carcinoma. CONCLUSION: A primary care approach to medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding can help family physicians treat most women in the office as well as help physicians know when to refer women for specialist care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".