MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115655556 · doi:10.1016/j.radcr.2020.12.045

Nonpuerperal vaginal hemorrhage secondary to complete uterine inversion: A case report

2020· article· en· W3115655556 on OpenAlexaff
Mana Modares, Josée Sarrazin

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology Case Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUterine inversionMedicineCervical canalLeiomyomaVaginaHysterectomyLesionRadiologyUterine leiomyomaUterusVaginal bleedingCervixSurgeryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 95% of uterine inversion cases are associated with pregnancy in the early postpartum period. This case describes a rare presentation of uterine inversion in the nonpuerperal period secondary to a submucosal leiomyoma. A 48-year-old G2P2 peri-menopausal female was admitted for 6 weeks of abnormal uterine bleeding and a 17 × 10 cm mass prolapsing into the cervical canal and upper vagina, with a large vascular pedicle inserting into the central superior aspect of the lesion from the fundal region. A computed tomography (CT) scan confirmed the diagnosis of a complete uterine inversion secondary to a large fundal leiomyoma with a submucosal component. Laparoscopic total hysterectomy was performed with no complications, and pathology confirmed the diagnosis of a benign leiomyoma. Though rare, uterine inversion can be caused by a leiomyoma in the nonpuerperal period and should be considered in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding and pelvic masses. Ultrasonography and CT scan were sufficient in providing an accurate diagnosis for which surgical management was indicated in this case.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiology Case ReportsSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207