MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591419574 · doi:10.14740/gr760e

Colonic Endometriosis: Dig Deeper for Diagnosis

2017· article· en· W2591419574 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kanthi Rekha Badipatla, Anisha Vupputuri, Masooma Niazi, Marie-Nirva Blaise, Suresh Kumar Nayudu

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometriosisLaparoscopyDifferential diagnosisGold standard (test)ColonoscopyEndometrial biopsySurgeryBiopsyGeneral surgeryRadiologyGynecologyInternal medicinePathologyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometriosis is a common gynecological condition wherein there is an ectopic implantation of the uterine endometrial tissue. While several diagnostic modalities are described for the condition, laparoscopy remains the gold standard. There is still an undiscovered area to diagnose colonic endometriosis at an earlier stage. We present a case report of a reproductive age woman with cyclical rectal bleeding diagnosed with colonic endometriosis with colonoscopy and biopsy using saline injection lift and sampling technique. We in our report try to impress the fact that this differential should always be considered in the appropriate clinical setting, especially in women of childbearing age and in such cases, deeper tissue sampling techniques should be sought for, given better diagnostic yield. This may be clinically important given that it may aid in earlier diagnosis and thereby early initiation of appropriate therapy before the disease takes a complicated route. It may also be helpful in avoiding unnecessary surgery, along with the morbidity, complications and costs associated with same.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207