[Laparoscopic sterilization using the Filshie clip--a prospective study of 180 patients].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this prospective study from 1997-2000, authors have been analyzing preliminary results of 180 tubal sterilizations, which were performed by method of the laparoscopic application of Filshie clips. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Department of operative gynaecology and minimally invasive surgery, Hospital Na Homolce, Prague. METHODS: The procedures were performed in accordance with the still valid Public Notice of the Czech Republic Ministry of Health n. 1/1972, section 5/1972. The mean age of the patients was 38.6 years, with each patient having 2.1 living children on average. During the intervention 42% of the patients either had IUD or were taking a hormonal contraceptive, while 29% of the patients had in their history a record of previous abdominal surgery. RESULTS: The average duration of the operation (from the incision to the closure) was 14 min. There were no per- or postoperative complications and until the present we have no knowledge of failure. In the view of both the patient and the surgeon, this is the most acceptable procedure. CONCLUSION: In accordance with the British (RCOG) and the Canadian Gynecological Society conclusions and also on the basis of many randomized studies and recommendations from WHO, we conclude that the laparoscopic approach with the mechanical tubal occlusion by means of the clip is the first choice method. Our previous experience and meta-analytic studies of the literature, demonstrate that from all accessible clip methods, the Filshie clip method is the most suitable as it has the lowest failure rate, the least occurrences of extrauterine gravidity (in a case of failure). Most importantly it is a simple, quick and easily taught method. Another potentially significant factor is the highest rate of successful reversibility.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".