Prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy for the prevention of ovarian cancers: What is happening in Italy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada encouraged physicians to discuss with their patients the risks and benefits of prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy (PBS) at the time of hysterectomy or tubal ligation for prevention of ovarian cancers (OCs). The aim of this study was to examine obstetrician-gynaecologists' knowledge, opinions and practice patterns relating to opportunistic salpingectomy in the general population. An anonymous electronic survey was sent to residents, academic and hospital staff in Italian OBGYN departments. The survey included questions on demographics, knowledge and attitudes in terms of the implementation of PBS in women at average population risk of OC. At least 80% of the 479 respondents reported performing PBS during hysterectomy for benign indications, chiefly with the intent of OC risk reduction but also to decrease the risk of reoperation and subsequent tubal pathologies. Among the 86 colleagues who do not routinely perform PBS, more than 50% stated that they have doubts regarding the benefits associated with the procedure. Most of the respondents declared that they were familiar with the literature on the topic and were aware of the data reporting the safety of the procedure, and only 21 (4.53%) had never heard of PBS. Over 40% of the respondents worked in hospitals in southern Italy. PBS as a prophylactic measure to reduce the incidence of OC is a well-known strategy among the Italian OBGYNs interviewed. Given the unequal distribution of respondents, however, wider educational initiatives should be undertaken, at least in Italy, to increase the implementation of salpingectomy among OBGYNs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".