Postmenopausal Ovarian Cysts: Current Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
background With the increased use of imaging in healthcare (eg, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, sonography), adnexal masses are identified with greater frequency. Ovarian masses, whether primarily cystic or solid in nature, engender concern for ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women. o bjective Report the experience of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Gundersen Lutheran Clinic, La Crosse, Wisconsin, with ovarian mass evaluation and treatment regimens in postmenopausal women. Methods A computer search of billing databases identified patients over the age of 55 years undergoing sonography at our facility in 2005. These patients’ electronic medical records were then reviewed. Forty-nine women met inclusion criteria. Main outcome measures were surgical interventions, ovarian neoplasms, and follow-up intervals. r esults In 7 patients (14%), the mass had resolved or could not be confirmed at time of evaluation. Fifty percent of women with adnexal cystic masses were managed expectantly. The other 50% of the patients with adnexal cystic masses underwent surgery (8 undergoing laparoscopic procedures). Five malignancies and 3 borderline tumors were diagnosed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".