Evaluation of Fractional CO2 Laser Treatment Efficacy and Comparison to Vaginal Conjugated Estrogen Cream in Postmenopausal Women with Vulvovaginal Atrophy: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vulvovaginal atrophy is common and bothersome among postmenopausal women. Hence in this study, the fractional CO2 laser treatment efficacy was compared with vaginal conjugated estrogen cream in postmenopausal women with vulvovaginal atrophy was assessed. Materials and Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 130 consecutive postmenopausal women with vulvovaginal atrophy attending to urogynecologic clinic in Imam-Khomeini hospital in Ahvaz in 2015 were enrolled and were randomly assigned to receive either fractional CO2 laser treatment or vaginal conjugated estrogen cream. The improvement of vulvovaginal atrophy symptoms, sexual satisfaction and function were compared across the groups after 12 weeks. Results: There improvement of vulvovaginal atrophy symptoms, sexual satisfaction, and function were 86.2%, 87.7%, and 87.7%, respectively in laser group and 53.8%, 52.3%, and 52.3%, respectively in primarin group showing statistically significant differences (P=0.0001). There were no side effects. Conclusion: Totally, according to obtained results, it may be concluded that efficacy of fractional CO2 laser was higher than vaginal conjugated estrogen cream in postmenopausal women with vulvovaginal atrophy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".