A Patient Registry for the Management of Uterine Fibroids in Canada: Protocol for a Multicenter, Prospective, Noninterventional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumor in women. Among those with fibroids, approximately 30% become symptomatic, with abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and bulk symptoms. Despite the high prevalence of fibroids, little information is available regarding symptoms, treatment choices, and outcomes for patients. OBJECTIVE: A Canada-wide patient registry was established to understand the real-world practice. This registry included patient presentation and treatment preferences, health care provider attitudes, and clinical outcomes in the management of symptomatic uterine fibroids. METHODS: This study is a prospective, noninterventional, observational patient registry. It will include women diagnosed with uterine fibroids and being managed for symptoms. Participant inclusion criteria were (1) at least 18 years of age, (2) premenopausal with a confirmed diagnosis of uterine fibroids, and associated symptoms, and (3) initiating treatment (drug intervention, procedure intervention, or a combination of both) or watchful waiting. Patients (or legal representative) must understand the nature of the project and provide written informed consent before enrollment. Participant exclusion criteria were (1) they have known or suspected clinically significant pelvic pathology not associated with uterine fibroids, and (2) they are undergoing an emergency hysterectomy at the initial visit. Outcomes will be evaluated in the context of routine clinical practice. RESULTS: Participant recruitment of this registry began in July 2015. This study currently has a total sample of 1500 patients. CONCLUSIONS: This registry, a first in Canada, will accumulate evidence on the risks and benefits of watchful waiting, and medical and procedural interventions. It will contribute to enhancing access to treatment options for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02580578; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02580578 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yax4Hpvr). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/10926.
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 | 0.038 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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".