MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161658681 · doi:10.14740/jcgo.v3i3.256

The Feasibility of In-Clinic Ultrasound-Guided Removal of Contraceptive Implants: A Case Series

2014· article· en· W2161658681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pooja Patel, Sandra Herrera, Toy G. Lee, Flor M. Galdamez, Kathleen L. Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSAFERUltrasonographyImplantContraceptive implantUltrasoundSurgeryRadiologyFamily planningPopulationResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The removal of a non-palpable subdermal contraceptive implant can be difficult and dangerous. We report on three cases in which the gynecologist herself performs real-time ultrasonography in the clinic, instead of referring the patient to a radiologist, to locate and remove non-palpable implants. This approach allows the clinician to offer a potentially safer and more convenient alternative to patients. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2014;3(3):105-107 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcgo256w

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207