Should We Manage Large Ovarian Cysts Laparoscopically?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this research was to evaluate the feasibility and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for large ovarian cysts in women <40 years of age. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation (Canadian Task Force classification 11-2 design) of 55 women (ages <40) with large ovarian cysts (≥10 cm) with features suggestive of benign disease managed laparoscopically at Paul's Hospital, in Cochin, Kerala, from July 2006 to April 2013. All patients were followed-up for a minimum of 1 year. Patients who were diagnosed as having borderline ovarian tumors were evaluated for their present clinical status at the end of study. Results: Laparoscopic surgery was performed successfully for all patients. The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were, respectively, 109.6 minutes (range: 40–255), 304.6 mL (range: 100–650), and 1.1 days (range: 1–3). Conversion to laparotomy was performed in none of the patients. Five cases of borderline malignancy were detected. Of these 5 cases; 3 underwent laparoscopic adnexectomy; 1 underwent bilateral cystectomy with staging biopsies, conceived 3 months postsurgery, and subsequently underwent laparoscopic adnexectomy at another center; and 1 underwent a unilateral laparoscopic cystectomy, and had a laparotomy and adnexectomy in another institution after 1 month. Conclusions: The current study supports laparoscopic management of large ovarian cysts as a technically feasible and effective method if proper case selection is applied. (J GYNECOL SURG 32:251)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".