Oral contraceptive pills as an option for non-surgical management of retained products of conception – a preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Patients with persistent retained products of conception prefers to avoid surgical interventions, such as a dilatation and curettage (D&C) that might pose an additional future risk to their already compromised fertility or obstetric performance. The aim of this study was to the possibility of induced withdrawal bleeding following oral contraceptive administration as a non-surgical treatment for patients with persistent retained products of conception (RPOC). A retrospective study of patients presenting with retained products of conception (RPOC) after failed expectant management or after treatment with PGE1 was performed. Twelve women presenting with RPOC at ≤8 weeks gestation with minimal to mild vaginal bleeding and no signs of infection were treated with oral contraceptive pill (OCP) containing 0.03 mg ethinylestradiol and 0.15 mg of desogestrel for 3 weeks. Out of the 12 patients treated, nine women (75%) successfully expelled the RPOC after completing the three-week course of OCPs. The three cases (25%) that did not resolve following OCP treatment had pregnancy products with positive blood flow on Doppler examination. We conclude that OCPs may be a useful medical treatment option for persisting RPOC in selected patients with absence blood flow on Doppler examination wishing to avoid surgical intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".