Cesarean section scar pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cesarean section scar pregnancy (CSSP) occurs due to implantation of the gestational sac over the previous cesarean section or hysterotomy scars.Case description: A 40-year-old woman referred to our hospital with a missed period for 5 weeks +3 days, mild vaginal spotting and β-hCG 5770 mIU/ml as a case of ectopic pregnancy.The repeated β-hCG was 8797 mIU/ml and the transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) showed the gestational sac located in the lower anterior quadrant of the uterus behind the urinary bladder (only a thin layer of myometrium separating it from the bladder), close to the internal cervical os and the site of the previous scars.The case was diagnosed as CSSP and managed according to the hospital protocol by systemic multi-dose methotrexate (MTX) with follow-up using β-hCG, TVS and complete blood count (CBC).When the β-hCG result was found to be 60.66 mIU/ml, and the repeated weekly TVS showed a progressive decrease in the size of the gestational sac, the studied woman was discharged from the hospital for follow-up in the outpatient department (OPD).Conclusions: There is no single best treatment to terminate the CSSP, and the procedure with the fewest complications should be selected.Several authors support systemic multi-dose MTX treatment for CSSP with follow-up using TVS, β-hCG and CBC.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.019 |
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".