MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406709833 · doi:10.1186/s42155-025-00516-3

Novel pain management strategy for uterine fibroid embolization

2025· article· en· W4406709833 on OpenAlexaff
Elaine Lynn‐Ee Ho, K. Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueCVIR Endovascular · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesNiagara Health SystemMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmbolizationUterine fibroidsSedationUterine artery embolizationAnalgesicAnesthesiaFentanylSurgeryInterventional pain managementMidazolamRadiologyPain management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroid embolization can be associated with significant pain due to fibroid ischemia and interventions of the procedure itself. Fentanyl and midazolam are commonly provided for sedation and pain relief, but are not tolerated by all patients. This report outlines a novel pain management strategy for uterine fibroid embolization in a patient who could not receive either opioids or benzodiazepines. METHODS: A 51 year old woman presenting with menorrhagia due to uterine fibroids was referred to interventional radiology for embolization. She was allergic to most opiates and had previously become agitated with IV midazolam, resulting in termination of a previous attempt at embolization. Thus, a combination of three analgesic modalities was used: intraarterial ropivacaine in the uterine arteries, superior hypogastric nerve block with ropivacaine, and intravenous acetaminophen. The patient underwent successful embolization and reported only intermittent pain of 1-2 out of 10 intensity. DISCUSSION: This combined analgesic cocktail represents a novel alternative to traditional sedation for uterine fibroid embolization and may serve as a viable option for patients with similar contraindications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCVIR EndovascularSame topicUterine Myomas and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207