Impact of Surgical Management of Endometrioma on Ovarian Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the outcome of surgical removal of endometriotic cyst on ovarian reserve. Materials and methods: This prospective observational study was carried out in Infertility Care and Research Centre, Dhaka, Bangladesh between January 2011 and December 2018. One hundred and fifty-five patients, who had an ultrasonographic diagnosis of endometrioma measuring ³3 cm and underwent surgical excision due to subfertility were the candidates for this study. The exclusion criteria were a) previous ovarian cystectomy, b) removal of one ovary, c) irregular menstrual cycle, d) polycystic ovarian syndrome e) endocrine disorder, f) low AMH (<1ng/ml), g) history of taking medication for endometriosis that could affect ovarian function, e.g., GnRH analogues or oral contraceptives during the 6 months preceding scheduled surgery. To investigate the effect of surgery on ovarian reserve, their FSH, E2 and AMH were measured before and after surgery. Tests were done before surgery and repeated after 3 months and 6 months of surgery. A value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Mean age of the patients was 31.72 ±2.77 years. The baseline FSH, E2 and AMH were within normal limit. In 63.88% of the cases the cysts were unilateral and 83.22% of the cases the size of the cysts were within 10 cm. To assess the change of ovarian reserve FSH, E2 and AMH were measured in 3 and 6 months after surgery. There was marked declining of AMH level from baseline to both 3 months and 6 months after surgery p is <0.0001. There was no significant change of FSH and AMH between 3 months and 6 months after surgery. Conclusion: Cystectomy in ovarian endometrioma significantly reduces ovarian reserve, which is menifested by reduced level of AMH. Bangladesh J Obstet Gynaecol, 2020; Vol. 35(2): 96-101
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".