Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the use of vaginoscopic versus traditionalhysteroscopy in the evaluation of endometrial cavity.Design:Prospective, randomized, single blinded, clinical trial(Canadian Task Force classification I).Setting: University-affiliated hospital in Hong Kong.Patients: Ninety women scheduled for diagnostic hysteroscopyunder no anaesthesia.Methods: Women were randomised to undergo eithervaginoscopic hysteroscopy using the H Pipelle for endometrialsampling (n = 45) or traditional hysteroscopy using the standardPipelle (n = 45). Both procedures were performed under noanaesthesia using a rigid 4.5 mm hysteroscope. Main outcomemeasures analyzed were pain scores using a 10-cm visual analoguescale during hysteroscopy, endometrial biopsy and the overall painsore of procedure, successfulness and duration of each procedure,and adequacy of endometrial sample obtained.Results: The success rate for vaginoscopic and traditionalhysteroscopy were 93.33% and 100%, respectively (P = 0.24).There was no significant difference in the mean pain score andprocedure duration between the two hysteroscopic approaches.Endometrial sampling with H Pipelle was significantly quicker byabout 45 s compared to the standard Pipelle [duration(mean ± SD, min): 1.46 ± 0.72 vs. 2.20 ± 1.19 respectively,P = 0.001] with similar biopsy adequacy. Most women (95.5% inboth approaches) found the procedure acceptable. There was nointra- and postoperative complications.Conclusions: Vaginoscopic and traditional hysteroscopicapproaches are similar in safety, feasibility and women’s painexperience. Shorter duration is needed to obtain an endometrialsampling using the H Pipelle than the standard Pipelle.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.924 | 0.743 |
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".