A 1‐year comparison of <scp>TC</scp>u380Ag versus <scp>TC</scp>u380A intrauterine contraceptive devices in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare TCu380Ag and TCu380A intrauterine contraceptive devices after 1 year of use. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted among healthy married women aged 20-35 years who attended the family planning clinics of three tertiary centers in India between August 1, 2015, to March 31, 2018. The TCu380Ag group (n=300) received one of three sizes of this device depending on uterocervical length: maxi (8.0-9.0 cm), normal (7.0-8.5 cm), or mini (6.0-7.5 cm). The remaining 300 participants received TCu380A. Follow-up was conducted at 3-monthly intervals to assess continuation rate, acceptability, efficacy, adverse effects, and complications. RESULTS: The TCu380Ag group had a higher continuation rate than the TCu380A group at 1 year (84.0% vs 75.8%; P=0.01), with an efficacy of 99.6% versus 100.0% (P>0.05). Overall estimated continuation rates were 94.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.7%-96.4%) and 88.4% (95% CI 83.2%-91.5%), respectively (P=0.026). Use of TCu380Ag was associated with fewer adverse effects (heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal pain, or expulsion) when compared with TCu380A (P>0.05 for all comparisons). Discontinuation rates owing to adverse effects were 6.59% for TCu380Ag versus 13.26% for TCu380A (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Varying sizes of TCu380Ag could provide an alternative to TCu380A.
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 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".