Pregnant women suffering from uterine fibroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction. Uterine fibroids are the most frequent benign tumors affecting sexual organs in women. It is estimated that they affect 20% of the female population, with the frequency in pregnant women ranging between 0.1-5%. In spite of the progress in the field of medicine, the actual cause of uterine fibroids has yet to be discovered. Aim. Analysis of the recent methods of dealing with uterine fibroids during pregnancy. Material and methods. A review of literature about dealing with pregnant, lying-in and parturient women suffering from uterine fibroids. Results. The research studies by Aydeniz, Vergani, Rice showed that cesarean sections are much more frequent in pregnant women with uterine fibroids than in control group (52.9% vs 27.9%; 23% vs 12%; 35.1% vs 21.5%). However, it was shown that the rate of cesarean sections was much higher in women with uterine fibroids located in the lower part of the uterus than in the fundus uteri (respectively 39% and 18%). Also, the rate increased when the diameter of the fibroid exceeded 5 cm, unlike in case of those smaller than 5 cm (respectively 35% and 17%). Conclusions. 1. The number of cesarean sections in women with uterine fibroids is higher than in control group. 2. The frequency of cesarean sections in pregnancies with uterine fibroids depends on their position and size. 3. There is no relationship between the number of complications and the amount of fibroids in pregnant women. 4. There is no agreement concerning the recommendations for removing the fibroid during cesarean section.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".