Uterine Leiomyomas and Infertility: A Comparison of National and International Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uterine leiomyomas are the most common benign tumors of the female genital track, causing various symptoms and problems, including a possible impact on fertility. The relationship between fibroids and infertility has long been a debate among gynecologists. Management of fibroids in women with otherwise unexplained infertility worldwide lacks standardized, evidence-based guidelines. Therefore, a review of guidelines from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, the Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français, and the American Society of Reproductive Medicine was conducted. There is agreement among all guidelines that the effect of fibroids on fertility is related to their position in the uterus and the alteration of the endometrial cavity. However, whether surgical intervention (laparotomy, laparoscopy, or hysteroscopy) is required varies among committees. More specifically, for submucous myomas, all guidelines agree that surgical intervention is needed. On the other hand, regarding intramural myomas, there is no consensus on what the approach may be. Novel treatments such as uterine artery embolization (UAE) and magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) should only be used in clinical trial settings. Nevertheless, all guidelines agree that medical management of fibroids further delays efforts to conceive and has no role as a stand-alone treatment of fibroids; though, the use of GnRH analogues preoperatively can be useful to improve anemia and/or reduce fibroid volume. There is a need for updated international protocols to be introduced, in order to help clinicians dealing with fibroids and infertility to better suggest the optimal treatment.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".