MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215684730 · doi:10.1186/s12905-021-01545-5

Treatment of endometriosis: a review with comparison of 8 guidelines

2021· review· en· W3215684730 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dimitrios Rafail Kalaitzopoulos, Nicolas Samartzis, Georgios Kolovos, Εvangelia Mareti, Eleftherios Pierre Samartzis, Markus Eberhard, Kostantinos Dinas, Angelos Daniilidis

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Women s Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
KeywordsEndometriosisMedicineMedical physicsGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis, the presence of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus, is a common clinical entity between women of reproductive age, with a prevalence of about 10%. Due to the variety of endometriosis-associated symptoms, a great variety of treatments have been implemented. The aim of this review is to give an overview on therapeutical approaches of eight national and international widely used guidelines. METHODS: Six national (College National des Gynecologues et Obstetriciens Francais, National German Guideline (S2k), Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, American College of Obstetricians (ACOG) and Gynecologists, American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and National Institute for Health and Care (NICE) and two international (World Endometriosis Society, European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology) guidelines are included in this review. CONCLUSION: All the above-mentioned guidelines agree that the combined oral contraceptive pill, progestogens are therapies recommended for endometriosis associated pain. Concerning infertility, there is no clear consensus about surgical treatment. Discrepancies are also found on recommendation of the second- and third-line treatments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations200
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Women s HealthSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207