vNOTES Hysterectomy: Can It Be Considered the Optimal Approach for Obese Patients?
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
Vaginally assisted Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic \nSurgery (vNOTES) is a recent and newly introduced technique which has a wide application in gynecologic surgery \nand other medical specialties [1]. This technique involves \nan endoscopic access creation in the vagina, through which \nabdominal and pelvic structures can be reached with appropriate devices. Moreover, it gained popularity since it is \nassociated with short operative time, reduced post-operatory \npain, lack of visible scars, and a better cosmetic result, using \nnatural orifices to access the abdominal cavity. In this \nregard, vNOTES was considered eligible for hysterectomy \nand was firstly described in 2012. During the last decade, \nseveral pieces of evidence suggested the efficacy and feasibility of this novel approach. Nevertheless, few metanalyses \nand randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed to evaluate vNOTES outcomes...
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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