Resolution of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding After Hysteroscopic Morcellation of Endometrial Polyps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The aim of this research was to assess symptom resolution and reintervention rates following hysteroscopic morcellation of benign polyps in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study involved women with AUB who underwent hysteroscopic resection with mechanical morcellation of benign polyps that were confirmed histopathologically. Need for further surgery, patients' satisfaction, symptom resolution, and postoperative complications were documented by direct patient contacts. Results: A total of 48 women were included in the study over a mean follow-up period of 29 ± 13 months. Each of these women had their polyps removed completely in single procedures, with a high satisfaction rate of 85% (41/48). No intra- or postoperative complications occurred. Over the long term, 18/48 (38%) of the women had recurrences or persistence of at least one of their symptoms, and 16% (8/48) required subsequent surgery. Conclusions: While successful removal of polyps with hysteroscopic morcellation is usual, failure to resolve AUB symptoms is high and adjuvant treatment should be considered.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".