Interdisciplinary Teams in Endometriosis Care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endometriosis-associated chronic pelvic pain can at times be a complex problem that is resistant to standard medical and surgical therapies. Multiple comorbidities and central sensitization may be at play and must be recognized with the help of a thorough history and physical examination. If a complex pain problem is identified, most endometriosis expert reviews and guidelines recommend multidisciplinary care. However, there are no specific recommendations about what should be the components of this approach and how that type of team care should be delivered. There is evidence showing the effectiveness of specific interventions such as pain education, physical therapy, psychological therapies, and pharmacotherapies for the treatment of chronic pain. Interdisciplinary team models have been well studied and validated in other chronic pain conditions such as low back pain. The published evidence in support of interdisciplinary teams for endometriosis-associated chronic pain is more limited but appears promising. Based on the available evidence, a model for an interdisciplinary team approach for endometriosis care is outlined.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it