A Case of Bilateral Ectopic Pregnancy Following Intra-Uterine Insemination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a case of a 31-year-old lady with primary subfertility who conceived only after her third intra-uterine insemination. She was diagnosed to have a right ectopic pregnancy which failed methotrexate treatment. Diagnostic laparoscopy confirmed bilateral ectopic pregnancies. A review was conducted for any consensus reached on diagnosis and optimal management of bilateral ectopic pregnancies after artificial reproductive techniques (ARTs). A search on Pubmed was carried out for publications in peer-reviewed journals with the following keywords: bilateral tubal ectopic pregnancy, heterotopic. Ten suitable publications were retrieved. Bilateral tubal ectopic pregnancy is rare, often missed on radiology and an unexpected finding at surgery. There should be a high index of suspicion for bilateral ectopic pregnancies after ART. Poor correlation with B-hCG levels further confuses diagnostic accuracy. It is prudent to ensure accurate diagnosis of bilateral ectopic pregnancies and appropriate intervention to reduce morbidity and mortality. Salpingostomy should be considered in patients with subfertility to preserve the possibility of future pregnancies. J Med Cases. 2016;7(7):286-290 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc2484w
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".