Fibroids Treated With Uterine Artery Embolization: Do Imaging Findings Correlate With Patient Outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether changes on ultrasound in uterine and fibroid volume and fibroid vascularity correlate with changes in symptom severity and health-related quality of life (HRQL) perceived by patients after uterine artery embolization (UAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four women (mean age 45.3) with symptomatic uterine fibroids underwent UAE at the Hysterectomy Alternatives (HAlt) clinic in Winnipeg, Manitoba. They completed a validated questionnaire assessing symptom severity and HRQL at baseline and at three and six months post-embolization, and ultrasound was also performed at these intervals. Changes in uterine and fibroid volume were compared with changes in symptom severity and HRQL. Data from patients with residual fibroid vascularity, extremes of baseline fibroid volume, and concomitant adenomyosis were analyzed to determine whether the outcomes were different in these patient groups. RESULTS: Changes in uterine and fibroid volumes did not correlate with changes in symptom severity or HRQL after UAE (P > 0.05). Residual fibroid vascularity was a negative predictor of reduction in uterine and fibroid volume (P < 0.05), but did not affect changes in symptom severity or HRQL. Extremes of baseline volume in the dominant fibroid did not affect symptom severity or HRQL. Patients with concomitant adenomyosis experienced greater improvement in symptoms than those without adenomyosis (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We found poor correlation between imaging findings and patient- perceived outcomes after UAE. Ultrasound cannot be used to predict improvement in symptoms or HRQL after UAE.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".