Thickened Endometrium in Postmenopausal Women With an Initial Biopsy of Limited, Benign, Surface Endometrium: Clinical Outcome and Subsequent Pathologic Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endometrial biopsy or curetting is indicated for postmenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding and/or thickened endometrium. Often, endometrial biopsy or curetting yields limited benign surface endometrium, which may indicate insufficient sampling. This study addresses the clinical outcome and subsequent pathologic diagnoses in postmenopausal women who received this initial diagnosis. Among a total of 370 endometrial biopsy or curetting between 2012 and 2015, 192 (52%) were diagnosed as limited benign surface endometrial epithelium. The women ranged in age from 55 to 91 yr old. Their clinical presentations mainly included postmenopausal bleeding, pelvic pain, and enlarged uterus. Primarily because the initial report was interpreted as "benign," 108 (57%) had no subsequent follow-up. Interestingly, women with an increased endometrial thickness were more likely to receive repeat evaluation. Among the 84 women who underwent follow-up endometrial sampling, 6 (7%) had hyperplasia with atypia or malignancy, 21 (25%) had a repeat diagnosis of limited surface sample, 4 (5%) had insufficient materials, and 53 (63%) had other benign findings. Among the subset of women who did receive subsequent follow-up, endometrial atypia or malignancies are more likely found in those with increased body mass index. In conclusion, a slight majority of women with postmenopausal bleeding and/or thickened endometrium had an initial limited surface endometrial sample. Most had no subsequent endometrial sampling. Among those with subsequent follow-up, the majority had benign findings. The study highlights the inconsistencies in adequacy criteria for endometrial sampling and the lack of standardization of subsequent management.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".