Workshop on cultivating shared decision making to improve surgical outcomes for pelvic organ prolapse
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This invited Workshop addressed the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) through the lens of a shared decision-making framework, based on individual discussions to balance benefits and risks of POP treatment. The framework begins with a consideration of bothersome symptoms as the basis for intervention, and highlights new research to investigate the relationship between POP symptoms and specific anatomical defects. This is followed by a consideration of treatment options including observation, pessaries, and surgery, offering a logical progression. We further consider surgery, focusing on surgical approach and uterine preservation as variables that influence benefits and risks of surgery. Finally, we consider individual variables that further modify specific benefit/risk ratios for a given patient and treatment modality. The goal is to provide a framework that incorporates all of these parameters into evidence informed discussion.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it