Endometriosis clinical guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This opinion article is endorsed by the World Endometriosis Society (WES) and the International Federation of Fertility Societies (IFFS)The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a dramatic shift in the clinical practice of women’s health and routine care for endometriosis has been severely disrupted. Endometriosis is defined as an inflammatory disease characterised by lesions of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus that is associated with pelvic pain and/or infertility.1 It affects approximately 10% of reproductive age women worldwide, is diagnosed by surgically visualisation or by radiological imaging, and is treated with hormone treatments or by laparoscopic removal of lesions.2,3Under the guidance of international gynaecological organisations4–6, many centres have temporarily ceased offering outpatient appointments, diagnostic imaging for non-acute pelvic pain, surgery for endometriosis, and fertility treatments. This means that endometriosis sufferers are be feeling particularly vulnerable and that resultant stress and anxiety may contribute to a worsening of symptoms. The pandemic poses several important questions for healthcare providers on how best to deliver care with these restrictions. Herein, we present clinical guidance on the management of endometriosis during the COVID-19 pandemic (Fig. 1).
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 | 0.003 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.031 |
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".