Management of benign ovarian lesions in girls: a trend toward fewer oophorectomies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The management of benign ovarian lesions in girls is currently a controversial topic in the pediatric surgical literature. The purpose of this review is to highlight the epidemiology of benign ovarian masses, outline preoperative risk stratification strategies, review the indications and importance of ovary-sparing surgery (OSS), and discuss the impact of management algorithms. RECENT FINDINGS: Efforts across the United States and Canada to promote OSS have improved awareness about the role and safety of OSS for the management of benign ovarian masses in pediatric and adolescent girls. Preoperative risk stratification techniques by a multidisciplinary team can improve the preoperative identification of lesions with a high likelihood of benign disease. SUMMARY: Avoiding oophorectomy may be associated with a number of benefits to individual patients and the overall population. The implementation of a management algorithm to guide the treatment of pediatric and adolescent girls with ovarian lesions can reduce the rate of inappropriate oophorectomies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".