MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2499379183 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n4p31

Amniotic Membrane as Allograft for Construction of Neovagina by McIndoe Technique in Vaginal Agenesis

2016· article· en· W2499379183 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Necip Cihangir Yılanlıoğlu, Altuğ Semiz, Yaşam Kemal Akpak, Semra Kahraman

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser SyndromeAgenesisVaginaSurgeryDysgenesisGynecologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>To assess the anatomical and functional results of neovagina creation with amniotic membrane.</p><p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We operated on three young women with vaginal agenesis two of whom had a diagnosis of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome and the other mixed gonadal dysgenesis. The mean age was 29.67 years (range 28-33). A fresh amniotic membrane retrieved from a Cesarean section on the same operation date was prepared over a mould and inserted into the newly formed tunnel between the bladder and the rectum as per McIndoe technique. The patients were followed up for one year minimum. </p><p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Mean vaginal depth achieved was 8, 10 and 7 cm (average 8.3 cm) at the 12 month follow-up clinic. Two patients expressed having satisfactory sexual life at follow-up interview. One patient who had infrequent coitus and neglected appropriate use of mould needed further follow-up in clinic and self-dilation.</p><p><strong>CONCLUSİONS: </strong>McIndoe vaginoplasty with fresh-homologous amniotic membrane is an effective low-risk procedure. It can produce good results in fairly short time span with modest demand on patient compliance and rare morbidity.</p>

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesFrench-language works237,207