Delivery of progestins via the subdermal versus the intrauterine route: comparison of the pharmacology and clinical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Subdermal and intrauterine progestin releasing systems are two types of long-acting reversible contraceptive systems (LARC). Their use has transformed current contraceptive practice management. There is not much objective evidence to help decide which method is preferable and in which particular circumstance using objective criteria. AREAS COVERED: MEDLINE, POPLINE, PubMed, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched using the terms "implant" vs "IUS" and then adding the terms "levonorgestrel" and "etonogestrel" to the implant arm and "levonorgestrel" to the IUS arm. This was done using commercial names as well for the terms "pharmacodynamics" and "pharmacokinetics" as well as for the term "therapeutic." Preference was given to comparative studies of the highest degree. EXPERT OPINION: Under normal circumstances, user satisfaction appeared marginally greater for intrauterine rather than subdermal progestin provision. However, after uterine events such as pregnancy or surgical evacuation of the uterus, implants performed better. Intrauterine progestin is preferable for therapeutic purposes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".