MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408576878

[Levonorgestrel intrauterine device associated with ureterpyelocaliceal ectasia].

2015· article· en· W2408576878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramiro Gálvez-Valdovinos, Rogelio A. Hernández‐López, Gustavo López-Ambriz, Christian Ramme-Cruzat

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLevonorgestrelUrinary systemUrinalysisPerforationSurgeryUrologyPopulationInternal medicineFamily planning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2010, Health Canada, the equivalent to the FDA, reported that the risk of uterine perforation caused by levonorgestrel intrauterine device (IUD) is very serious, warning that its use had increased the number of uterine perforation. CLINICAL CASE: A 33 years old patient in who was placed three years before a levonorgestrel IUD; She presented evolution of 10 days with pain in hypogastric and both flanks and chronic constipation of two years; in exploration: moderate abdominal distention, IUD strings were not visible in uterine cervix. With translocated IUD diagnosis, a tomography was performed, finding IUD in abdominal cavity and ureter pyelocalyceal bilateral ectasia; preoperative plasma concentration of levonorgestrel 5.1 nmol/L, leukocytosis of 11,000 cells/mm3, and 20-30 erythrocytes in urine exam. Laparoscopic resection of omentum attached to IUD translocated was performed. One month after surgery plasma levonorgestrel in 0.3 nmol/L, normal urinalysis and hematic cytometry and resolution of the urinary tract ectasia. CONCLUSIONS: devices translocated with levonorgestrel, must be removed because the inflammatory reaction caused and the perforation of hollow viscera likelihood, with possibility to produce digestive tract and urinary tract ectasia by its pharmacologic action on smooth muscle.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207