Comparison of the Effect on the Ovarian Reserve of Modern Methods of Treatment of Endometrioid Cysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy in laparoscopy and transvaginal sclerotherapy for the treatment of endometrioid cysts for maintaining ovarian reserve. METHODS: The study included 71 women under age 35 years with primary and secondary infertility. Twenty women underwent sclerotherapy of endometrioid cysts followed by autologous PRP injection into ovarian tissue, and 21 underwent laparoscopic cyst removal by stripping followed by autologous PRP injection. The control group consisted of 30 women who underwent laparoscopic cystectomy by stripping without autologous PRP injection. We assessed ovarian reserve for all patients before surgery as well 3 and 6 months after surgery by measuring serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and calculating antral follicle count using ultrasound. RESULTS: In the control group, AMH levels had decreased significantly at 3 and 6 months post-surgery, whereas levels in laparoscopy and PRP group remained almost unchanged from initial levels. In the sclerotherapy group, we observed a tendency towards increased AMH levels, but it was not statistically significant when compared with initial results. Follicle count changes were similar to AMH patterns. CONCLUSION: In this study, sclerotherapy in combination with PRP therapy for ovarian endometriomas was associated with improved measures of ovarian reserve, and the combination of laparoscopic excision of the endometrioma with PRP therapy facilitated ovarian reserve preservation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".