MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967613786 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15863

Human uterine transplantation: a review of outcomes from the first 45 cases

2019· review· en· W2967613786 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin P. Jones, Srdjan Saso, Timothy Bracewell‐Milnes, M‐Y Thum, James Nicopoullos, César Díaz‐García, Peter J. Friend, Sadaf Ghaem‐Maghami, Giuliano Testa, Liza Johannesson, I Quiroga, J. Yazbek, Jr. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan and Tissue Transplantation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInfertilityTransplantationComplicationGynecologyFemale infertilityObstetricsGestationQuarter (Canadian coin)Risk factorSurgeryPregnancyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uterine transplantation restores reproductive anatomy in women with absolute uterine factor infertility and allows the opportunity to conceive, experience gestation, and acquire motherhood. The number of cases being performed is increasing exponentially, with detailed outcomes from 45 cases, including nine live births, now available. In light of the data presented herein, including detailed surgical, immunosuppressive and obstetric outcomes, the feasibility of uterine transplantation is now difficult to refute. However, it is associated with significant risk with more than one-quarter of grafts removed because of complications, and one in ten donors suffering complications requiring surgical repair. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Uterine transplantation is feasible in women with uterine factor infertility, but is associated with significant risk of complication.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations159
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicOrgan and Tissue Transplantation ResearchFrench-language works237,207