Could the anatomic location of Essure® device explain the impairment of quality of life?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since health-related quality of life (HRQL) could improve after removal of Essure® (Bayer, Leverkusen, Germany) inserts in symptomatic patients, we aimed to assess whether such postoperative enhancement was linked to the anatomic placement of the device.METHODS: Correct and incorrect placed Essure® (Bayer) were identified in the electronic database of the French cohort Ablimco (cohort of consenting patients with laparoscopic Essure® [Bayer] removal). HRQL, pain and heavy menstrual bleeding were evaluated after Essure® (Bayer) removal with validated quality of life questionnaires (Short Form12 Questionnaire, Visual Analogue Scale, French version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the pictorial blood assessment chart PBAC).RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were included in the study divided in two groups (group A with correct placement: 45 patients and group B with incorrect placement: 20 patients). HRQL and Pain Index were improved in both groups at 6 months post-surgery. There was not any statistically significant difference between group A and B. The PBAC score increased at 6 months postoperatively in group A and B without any statistically significant difference between them.CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative improvement of quality of life and pain index was similar whatever the position of the implant. This suggests that symptomatology and quality of life are not related to the anatomic location of the Essure® (Bayer) implants.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".