MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626793355 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.4611

The pubovaginal sling: Reintroducing an old friend

2017· review· en· W2626793355 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
G Bailly, Kevin Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSling (weapon)MedicineUrinary incontinenceGeneral surgerySurgeryFood and drug administrationStress incontinenceMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has evolved over the past century, using various techniques of retropubic colposuspensions and sling procedures. In the past two decades, the sling has become the mainstay of surgical treatment of SUI, with the synthetic midurethral sling (MUS) leading the way. With the recent concerns raised by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada about the safety of vaginal surgery using mesh implants, including the MUS, urologists and gynecologists should be familiar with suitable alternatives, including the pubovaginal sling (PVS), which often incorporates autologous fascia. Surgeons should be expected to discuss the surgical options to patients in more detail so that an informed decision can be made by both parties on which surgery to choose. Despite the MUS still being considered the "gold standard" by many, both the urologist and gynecologist who manage SUI should understand the indications for a PVS with autologous fascia, as well as its surgical technique and outcomes. This knowledge is required to aid in the decision-making of both the patient and her surgeon. In this article, the role of the PVS and the description of its surgical technique are presented.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207