Fertility preservation in ovary pathologies in pediatric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To study cases with ovarian torsion or ovarian tumors and hemorrhagic cysts and to review those who underwent ovary sparing surgery in a follow up period of 1 month, 3 months and 1 year. Methods: A prospective study of 46 youth and adolescent patients, from 6 to 16 years old, were prospectively studied from October 2015 to October 2020, in a single tertiary care children's hospital. All underwent radical or ovary- sparing operative management, due to ovarian torsion or ovarian tumor/cyst. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS (ve 24 SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL,USA). Results: Sixteen patients underwent radical surgery, while ovary sparing surgery was performed in thirty three. Overall, 5 were diagnosed with ovarian torsion, 11 with ovarian or fallopian tube torsion due to hemorrhagic cyst or tumor and 30 with ovarian tumor (23 benign and 7 malignant). Benign or malignant etiology was confirmed through biopsy. Ultrasound was used for diagnosis in all patients, while CT scan or MRI only in 18 cases, especially in those with strong indications of tumor pathology. Initial operation was performed laparoscopically in 30% of patients, without any conversion to open surgery. In all patients postoperative ovarian ultrasound imaging was performed 1 and 3 months after surgery. An ultrasound follow-up 12 months postoperatively was performed in 38 patients. Conclusion: Ovarian-sparing operations are safe for ovarian torsion and benign ovarian tumors and conferred successful clinical outcomes of low recurrence and repeated surgery rates. It is also a viable approach in children and young girls in an attempt to preserve future fertility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".