Effects of visceral peritoneal closure on scar formation at cesarean delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of closure or non-closure of the visceral peritoneum at cesarean delivery on uterine scar formation assessed at repeat cesarean delivery. METHODS: Women undergoing initial cesarean delivery were allocated into 2 groups: group 1 underwent visceral peritoneal closure, while in group 2 the visceral peritoneum was not closed. At repeat cesarean delivery 4 specimens from the initial uterine scar were collected and assessed by light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: In group 1, 57% of women had adhesions compared with 20.6% in group 2 (P<0.05). Light microscopy revealed reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (51.8% vs 13.7%), submesothelial fibrosis (48.1% vs 6.8%), and neoangiogenesis of mesothelial stroma (44.4% vs 12%) in group 1 and group 2 patients, respectively (P<0.05). Scanning electron microscopy showed more patients with pericytes on the surface of microvessels in group 1 compared with group 2 (26.3+/-1.4 vs 11.5+/-1.1 patients; P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Closure of the visceral peritoneum at cesarean delivery may produce an inflammatory reaction and adhesions, evidenced by reactive and regenerative mesothelial hyperplasia and submesothelial fibrosis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".