MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615665167 · doi:10.4293/jsls.2014.00250

Laparoscopic Hemihysterectomy for Uterus Didelphys Following Laparotomy

2015· article· en· W2615665167 on OpenAlexaff
Areiyu Zhang, F. AbdelHafez, James Liu, Mohamed A. Bedaiwy

Bibliographic record

VenueCRSLS Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeons · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUterus didelphysLaparotomyUterusMedicineGeneral surgeryGynecologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Mu ¨llerian anomalies can be challenging to diagnose.We describe a patient with uterus didelphys and cervical atresia who presented with a symptomatic pelvic mass that was incompletely diagnosed as an endometrioma.Consequently, it was inadequately treated at the time of laparotomy, necessitating a laparoscopic hemihysterectomy for definitive management.Case Description: A 17-year-old nulligravida presented with abdominal pain and pelvic pressure.Computed tomographic imaging showed an 18-cm pelvic mass and left renal agenesis.The patient underwent an exploratory laparotomy with resection of a large endometrioma and left salpingo-oophorectomy.During the operation, an enlarged left uterine horn was observed and was kept intact.She made an uneventful recovery, but returned 6 months later with pelvic pain and pressure.Ultrasonography and hysterosalpingogram diagnosed uterus didelphys with left cervical atresia causing an obstructed hemiuterus.Laparoscopic hemihysterectomy with extensive adhesiolysis was performed, and the patient's symptoms resolved.Discussion: Endometrioma is rare in adolescents, and its presence should raise suspicion of a mu ¨llerian anomaly.Laparoscopic management, while safe and feasible, is more challenging in the setting of dense adhesions from a prior laparotomy.Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging is recommended in adolescents who present with chronic pelvic pain and a symptomatic pelvic mass, to rule out a congenital anomaly and avoid a needless second surgery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCRSLS Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic and Robotic SurgeonsSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207