Effects of visceral peritoneal closure on scar formation at cesarean delivery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it