MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952278004 · doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000555

A critical review of recent advances in the diagnosis, classification, and management of uterine adenomyosis

2019· review· en· W2952278004 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Tan, Paul J. Yong, Mohamed A. Bedaiwy

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdenomyosisMedicinePelvic painMyometriumBioinformaticsGynecologyEndometriosisIntensive care medicinePathologyRadiologyUterusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to summarize and highlight recent critical advances in the diagnosis, classification, and management of adenomyosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have clarified the specific mechanism through which adenomyotic lesions invade the underlying myometrium by epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Correlation studies using diagnostic MRI also strongly support the hypothesis of a different pathogenesis between the inner and outer myometrium forms of adenomyosis. Given advances in diagnostic imaging, several international organizations have also highlighted the importance of classification systems for adenomyosis. Finally, selective progesterone receptor modulators and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists have demonstrated significant promise for treating pelvic pain and bleeding associated with adenomyosis, whereas novel fertility-preserving surgical techniques have been introduced to excise diffuse adenomyotic pathology while maintaining adequate uterine integrity. SUMMARY: Recent attempts at a uniform and reproducible classification system likely represent the first step for the development of a staging system for adenomyosis that can be correlated with the severity of clinical symptoms and promote an individualized therapeutic approach. Simultaneously, further insights into the etiology and pathogenesis as outlined in this review may also help in the development of targeted medical therapies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.248
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207