MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413139175 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.70445

Cesarean myomectomy for large uterine fibroids: Surgical outcomes from a single‐center case series

2025· article· en· W4413139175 on OpenAlexaff
Lacey Brennan, Megan Werger, Sofia Ivanisevic, Sallie Han, Evan Tannenbaum, Sebastian R. Hobson, Mara Sobel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSingle CenterUterine myomectomyUterine fibroidsCenter (category theory)ObstetricsGynecologySurgeryMyomaUterusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of cesarean myomectomy in patients with fibroids greater than 5 cm. METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of 45 patients undergoing cesarean delivery with concurrent myomectomy for fibroids >5 cm at a tertiary care center. Primary outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), hemoglobin drop, transfusion rates, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 74 min. On average, 2.5 fibroids were removed, with the largest averaging 10.1 cm in diameter. The mean hemoglobin drop was 2.5 g/dL, significantly associated with fibroid size. Average EBL was 827 mL. No patients required intraoperative transfusion, and only 4.4% required postoperative transfusion. Complication rates were comparable to standard cesarean delivery. CONCLUSION: Cesarean myomectomy for larger fibroids is feasible and safe within experienced surgical programs, allowing patients to avoid additional surgery without significantly increased risk.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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