MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971622027 · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000000774

Aftermath of a Midurethral Sling Placed in the First Trimester: A Case Report

2019· article· en· W2971622027 on OpenAlexaff
Breffini Anglim, Colleen D. McDermott

Bibliographic record

VenueFemale Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNocturiaMedicineUrogynecologySling (weapon)Urinary incontinencePregnancyGestationObstetricsUrinary systemGynecologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are limited data on the management of pregnancy and delivery after midurethral sling (MUS) surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We report a case of a 39-year-old woman who underwent an MUS in July 2017. She reported a 10-year history of frequency, urgency with rare urge incontinence, nocturia, and occasional SUI when coughing or sneezing. Preoperative assessment did not include a pregnancy test. Two days after MUS placement, she developed complete urinary retention, and it was determined that she was 6 weeks pregnant. She was referred to a tertiary urogynecology unit and was seen at 23 weeks' gestation with worsening symptoms of urinary frequency and nocturia. She also described difficulty voiding but no incontinence. She was managed with conservative measures initially, but by 35 weeks, she required intermittent self-catherization (ISC). She underwent an elective cesarean delivery at 39 weeks' gestation. She reported postvoid dribbling, urge incontinence, and recurrent SUI at 10 months postpartum. This case report adds to the body of knowledge around outcomes of MUS during and after pregnancy.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFemale Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207