MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281759485 · doi:10.1530/raf-21-0117

‘Seeing is believing’: arguing for diagnostic laparoscopy as a diagnostic test for endometriosis

2022· review· en· W4281759485 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Mak, Mathew Leonardi, George Condous

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction and Fertility · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometriosisLaparoscopyMedicinePelvic painDiagnostic testInfertilityGeneral surgeryDiseaseMedical imagingSurgeryRadiologyGynecologyPathologyPediatricsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometriosis is a benign disease that can cause pain and infertility in women. Debate exists over how endometriosis should best be diagnosed. On one hand, endometriosis can be diagnosed by directly examining pelvic anatomy via a surgical procedure known as diagnostic laparoscopy. On the other hand, the disease can be diagnosed via non-surgical means such as using medical imaging, the symptoms described by the patient and whether the patient responds to non-surgical therapies such as medication. In this debate article, we argue in favour of diagnostic laparoscopy. We review the safety of the procedure, compare the ability of diagnostic laparoscopy vs medical imaging to detect endometriosis and consider the benefits of formally diagnosing or ruling out the condition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.441
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.441
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction and FertilitySame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207