Prevalence of subtle distal Fallopian tube abnormalities and their association with endometriosis in infertility patients: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subtle distal Fallopian tube abnormalities comprise a group of diseases that are characterised by subtle variations in tubal anatomy. This prospective cohort study investigated the prevalence of subtle distal Fallopian tube abnormalities in the infertile population and their relationship with endometriosis. It was conducted in a single fertility referral centre between January 2017 and December 2018 and included all infertile patients who underwent laparoscopy. Subtle distal Fallopian tube abnormalities included fimbrial agglutination, tubal diverticula, accessory ostium, fimbrial phimosis, and accessory Fallopian tube. A total of 876 patients were enrolled in the study, and 251 cases (28.65%; mean age: 29.4 ± 4.7 years) were diagnosed with subtle tube abnormalities. A total of 179 of these cases presented only one type of abnormality, 62 presented two types of abnormalities, and 12 presented three types. Tubal fimbrial agglutination composed the largest group (62.2%; n = 156), followed by tubal diverticula (26.3%; n = 66), fimbrial phimosis (25.5%; n = 64), tubal accessory ostium (15.5%; n = 39), and tubal accessory ostium (15.5%; n = 39). An accessory Fallopian tube was the least common abnormity (4.8%; n = 12). A total of 70.9% (178/251) of the women with subtle tubal abnormalities had endometriosis. The prevalence of subtle distal Fallopian tube abnormalities in the stage I-II group was significantly higher than in the stage III-IV group (57.3% [149/260] vs. 20.9% [29/139]; p < 0.001). These findings indicate the high prevalence of subtle distal Fallopian tube abnormalities in the infertile woman. This group of diseases is highly related to endometriosis and may indicate fimbrial abnormalities of endometriosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".