Outcomes After Surgery at an Interdisciplinary Centre of Expertise for Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain in Canada: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate pain-related quality-of-life (Endometriosis Health Profile-30 [EHP-30] pain subscale) after surgery at an interdisciplinary centre of expertise for endometriosis and pelvic pain. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was completed of persons undergoing surgical management for pelvic pain between December 2013 and July 2016 at an interdisciplinary tertiary referral centre for pelvic pain and endometriosis. We compared the change in EHP-30 scores for the following scenarios: (1) type of surgery (conservative surgery vs. hysterectomy), (2) stage of endometriosis (stage I/II vs. III/IV), and (3) age (age <40 vs. age ≥40 years). We used mixed-effects models to evaluate changes in pain during follow-up after surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 595 individuals met our inclusion criteria; the follow-up rate was 65.9% (392/595). In total, 436 (73.3%) underwent conservative surgery, while 159 (26.7%) underwent hysterectomy. Improvements in pain-related quality-of-life were seen for both conservative surgery and hysterectomy but greater improvements were seen with hysterectomy (P < 0.001). For conservative surgery, similar improvements in quality-of-life were observed regardless of endometriosis stage (I/II vs. III/IV) (P = 0.84) or age (<40 or ≥40 years old) (P = 0.87). We also observed similar improvements in quality-of-life regardless of stage (P = 0.24) or age (P = 0.71) after hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: At an interdisciplinary centre of expertise, there were significant improvements in quality-of-life after endometriosis surgery. These improvements were seen for both conservative surgery and hysterectomy (although greater improvement with the latter), for early and advanced stage disease, and younger and older patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".