<scp>A</scp>llen–<scp>M</scp>asters syndrome: Do the classic risk factors also apply in patients with endometriosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate whether the classic risk factors for Allen-Masters syndrome, such as body mass index (BMI) and spontaneous births, are in fact responsible for the condition in patients with endometriosis. METHODS: A total of 26 women who underwent a laparoscopic procedure due to chronic pelvic pain, Allen-Masters syndrome and endometriosis from 2009-2011 were enrolled in this study from an endometriosis competence center specializing in minimally invasive surgery. This was a retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). RESULTS: Only eight of the 26 patients (30.77%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.33-51.79%) had the classic risk factors (BMI >25 kg/m(2) and/or at least one spontaneous birth). The mean age in the study group was 32.08 years (SD ± 5.45). The patients had a mean BMI (kg/m(2) ) of 19.61 (SD ± 3.07). The means for the patients' clinical data were 0.88 (SD ± 1.53) pregnancies, 0.81 (SD ± 1.23) for parity, 0.27 (SD ± 0.60) for cesareans and 0.54 (SD ± 0.99) for spontaneous births. The revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM) stage showed a median of grade III. The left side of the posterior compartment was more often affected (73.1% of cases) than the right side in all patients. CONCLUSION: In all, 69.23% of the cases (95% CI, 48.21-85.67%) were not explained by the classic risk factors. In view of the absence of other diseases and otherwise unremarkable parameters, we consider mechanical damage of the lesser pelvis not to be solely responsible for AMS. Further observations in patients with AMS, with and without endometriosis, may be able to contribute to research into the actual etiology of the condition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".