MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401745477 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.15860

Good practice with fluid management in operative hysteroscopy

2024· review· en· W4401745477 on OpenAlexaff
George A. Vilos, Angelos G. Vilos, Basim Abu‐Rafea, Artin Ternamian, Philippe Y. Laberge, Malcolm G. Munro

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)ElectrosurgeryHysteroscopyUterine cavitySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hysteroscopic surgery requires a balance of continuous controlled irrigation and aspiration to distend the endometrial cavity to a degree that provides the clear and stable visual environment necessary for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Whereas the preferred distending solution should be isotonic and isonatremic, radiofrequency (RF) electrosurgery with monopolar instrumentation can only be performed with non-ionic (hyponatremic) solutions. Absorption of as little as 500 mL and certainly more than 1000 mL of non-ionic solutions can result in fluid overload and/or dilutional hyponatremia with potentially serious adverse effects under certain conditions and patient characteristics. Both hysteroscopic RF electrosurgery with bipolar instrumentation and electro-mechanical morcellation and aspiration systems use isotonic and isonatremic solutions. Depending on the clinical context, absorption of more than 1500 mL of isonatremic solutions can also result in serious adverse effects. Automated fluid management systems are preferred and recommended, and surgeons should aim to maintain the maximum allowable intravasation of distending media below 1000 and 1500 mL for non-ionic and ionic fluids, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicUterine Myomas and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207