Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief OBJECTIVE To estimate the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol for medical management of missed abortion. METHODS Fifty women with missed abortion were randomized to treatment with up to two 800-mg doses of misoprostol vaginally or a placebo. Participants were reviewed daily for 2 days, then again at 1 week. A blood sample for hemoglobin and serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (βhCG) was obtained on day 1 and the hemoglobin level checked again on day 7. Complete abortion was defined as expulsion of the products of conception without dilation and curettage (D&C) and a negative follow-up urine βhCG test after 4 weeks, or as no products of conception obtained at D&C in cases of suspected incomplete abortion. RESULTS The rate of complete abortion was 80% (20 of 25) in the misoprostol group and 16% (four of 25) in the placebo group, relative risk 0.20 (0.08, 0.50), P < .001. The rate of D&C was 28% (seven of 25) in the misoprostol group and 84% (21 of 25) in the placebo group, relative risk 0.33 (0.17, 0.64), P < .001. One participant in the misoprostol group had an emergency D&C for heavy bleeding. No participants required blood transfusion. The mean reduction in hemoglobin from day 1 to day 7 was 3.2 g/L in the misoprostol group versus 4.3 g/L in the placebo group, P = .72. Patient satisfaction with misoprostol treatment was high with 19 of 21 participants reporting they would try medical management again if they experienced another missed abortion. CONCLUSION Medical management of missed abortion is effective, reduces the need for D&C, and is associated with high levels of patient satisfaction. Treatment of missed abortion with misoprostol resulted in completed abortions in a high proportion of cases and reduced the need for dilation and curettage.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".