A Pilot Feasibility Multicenter Study of Patients After Excision of Endometriosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To serve as a pilot feasibility study for a randomized study of excision versus ablation in the treatment of endometriosis by (1) estimating the magnitude of change in symptoms after excision only at multiple referral centers and (2) determining the proportion of women willing to participate in a randomized trial. METHODS: We performed a multicenter prospective study of women undergoing excision for endometriosis (Canadian Task Force class II-3) at Duke University Center for Endometriosis Research & Treatment (currently the Saint Louis University Center for Endometriosis), Center for Endometriosis Care, Northshore University Health System, Memorial University (Canada), and Florida Hospital. The study comprised 100 female patients, aged 18 to 55 years, with endometriosis-suspected pelvic pain. The intervention was laparoscopic excision only of the abnormal peritoneum suspicious for endometriosis. The main outcome measures were quality of life, pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and bowel and bladder symptoms. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 8.5 months. Excision of endometriosis showed a significant reduction in all pain scores except bowel symptoms, as well as significant improvement in quality of life. Of the patients, 84% were willing to participate in a randomized study. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life is a needed primary outcome for any randomized study comparing excision versus ablation. A multicenter comparative trial is feasible, although quality assurance would have to be addressed. Patients were willing to be randomized even at surgical referral centers.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".