MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111756901 · doi:10.1080/09513590.2020.1816720

Dopamine agonists as genital endometriosis target therapy

2020· article· en· W3111756901 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria I. Yarmolinskaya, Е. В. Суслова, Natalia N. Tkachenko, А. С. Молотков, Igor Yu. Kogan

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecological Endocrinology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCabergolineEndometriosisVisual analogue scaleMedicineProlactinPelvic painInternal medicineSex organDopamineGynecologyDopamine agonistGastroenterologyUrologyHormoneSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The present study was to find a pathogenic evidence for dopamine agonist application in patients with endometriosis associated pain syndrome. PATIENTS AND TECHNIQUE: The study involved 227 patients of reproductive age with histologically confirmed genital endometriosis (GE) of I-III degree according to ASRM classification. The control group included 12 women with no laparoscope detected gynecologic pathology. The levels of prolactin (PRL), peripheral blood (PB), and peritoneal fluid (PF) were evaluated by chemiluminescence immune assay. The pain syndrome was measured by McGill visual analogue scale. Statistica10 program (StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK) was applied for obtained data processing. RESULTS: < .05). Patients receiving cabergoline combined with hormone therapy standard schemes manifested considerable pain syndrome relief. CONCLUSIONS: PRL involvement in GE pathogenesis and more intense therapeutic impact on pain syndrome in case of combined administration of dopamine and standard hormone therapy prove cabergoline application in clinical practice.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecological EndocrinologySame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207