Laparoscopy-guided myometrial biopsy in the definite diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the usefulness of laparoscopy-guided myometrial biopsy in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. METHODS: This prospective non-randomized study (Canadian Task Force classification II-1) was conducted in a tertiary medical center. One hundred patients who had clinical signs and symptoms strongly suggestive of adenomyosis were included as the study sample. Transvaginal sonography, serum CA-125 determination and laparoscopy-guided myometrial biopsy were performed. RESULTS: The mean largest myometrial thickness was 3.10+/-0.56 cm (range 2.30-4.50). The mean serum CA-125 level was 49.64+/-38.30 U/ml (range 10.90-205.28). Of these 100 patients, adenomyosis was pathologically proven in 92 patients, small leiomyoma in four patients and myometrial hypertrophy in four patients. The sensitivity of myometrial biopsy was 98% and the specificity 100%; the positive predictive value was 100% and the negative predictive value 80%, which were superior to those of transvaginal sonography, serum CA-125 determination or the combination of both. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy-guided myometrial biopsy is a valuable tool for obtaining a definite diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis with preservation of the uterus in infertility workup or in the evaluation of dysmenorrhea or chronic pelvic pain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".