Uterine fibroid embolization: CME update for family physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review evidence supporting the use of uterine fibroid embolization (UFE) as an alternative to hysterectomy and myomectomy for managing uterine fibroids. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE was searched using the MeSH terms embolization, therapeutic; leiomyoma; treatment outcome; pregnancy; and clinical trials. Most published studies on use of UFE for management of uterine fibroids provide level II evidence. MAIN MESSAGE: For 71% to 92% of patients, UFE is effective at alleviating fibroid-related symptoms. After UFE, fibroids are reduced in size by 42% to 83%. Patients' satisfaction with the procedure is high (>90%), and UFE is safe and has a low rate of major complications (1.25%). When compared with hysterectomy, UFE is associated with fewer major complications, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery. Although successful pregnancy following UFE is possible, there is insufficient evidence to advocate use of UFE over myomectomy for management of uterine fibroids in women wishing to preserve fertility. CONCLUSION: For treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids, UFE is a safe and effective nonsurgical alternative to hysterectomy and myomectomy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
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".