MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414193534

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomy in a primary care hospital setting.

2005· article· en· W2414193534 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John L. Washington

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHysterectomyAbdominal hysterectomyBlood lossLaparoscopySurgeryObstetricsGeneral surgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the operative parameters of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, total vaginal hysterectomy, and total abdominal hysterectomy in patients in a small suburban medical center. METHODS: This investigation is a Canadian Classification II-2. It was performed in a 238 bed not-for-profit community general hospital. Charts of 117 patients were reviewed. These patients had undergone the following procedures: laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, total vaginal hysterectomy, total abdominal hysterectomy; questionnaires completed by the patients were reviewed. All patients had hysterectomies performed by members of the Ob/Gyn department of Alamance Regional Medical Center. Comparisons of intraoperative and postoperative events were made in those patients who consented to the study and who returned their questionnaires. Parameters compared were patient age, weight, preoperative diagnosis, operative time, operative complications, blood loss, uterine weight, length of stay, postoperative complications, return to hospital, return to work, resumption of intercourse, dyspareunia, and bowel or bladder problems. RESULTS: Patient demographics and outcomes are similar. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy showed lower morbidity and quicker return to normal function, but most findings did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The results support the conclusion that the patients in each arm of the study are similar. The operative parameters show a longer operating time for the laparoscopic procedures than for total abdominal hysterectomy and total vaginal hysterectomy, respectively. The other indicators of morbidity show slight advantages of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy in blood loss, length of stay, and resumption of normal activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicUterine Myomas and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207