MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W27561925

Diagnostic hysteroscopy as a primary tool in a basic infertility workup.

2007· article· en· W27561925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Moty Pansky, Michal Feingold, Ron Sagi, Arie Herman, David Schneider, Reuvit Halperin

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHysteroscopyMedicineInfertilityUterine cavityPrimary infertilityObstetricsGynecologyRetrospective cohort studyPregnancySurgeryUterusInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of diagnostic hysteroscopy in a primary workup of infertility. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2) of 221 infertile patients referred to the Outpatient Center for Uterine Cavity Evaluation and the Tel-Aviv University affiliated Assaf Harofe Medical Center for evaluation of the uterine cavity. Patients underwent a diagnostic office hysteroscopy. RESULTS: Hysteroscopy revealed an abnormal uterine cavity in 30% of women evaluated for either primary or secondary infertility. No significance was found regarding the total number of intrauterine pathologies when comparing the groups of primary versus secondary infertility. CONCLUSION: Routine diagnostic hysteroscopy should be part of an infertility workup in primary and secondary infertility.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207