MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413760492 · doi:10.47407/kr2025.6.2.00564

Adenomyosis: clinicist’s tactics through the prism of domestic and international guidelines

2025· article· en· W4413760492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
М.Р. Оразов

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical review for general practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicResearch in Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdenomyosisPrismBusinessMedicinePolitical scienceInternal medicineOpticsPhysicsUterus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, both adenomyosis and endometriosis are at the forefront of scientific debate. The kinship of adenomyosis and endometriosis at first glance still raise no doubts, since there is reliable scientific evidence of the fact that the pathogenesis of these disease entities has much in common. However, despite the continuing similarity, adenomyosis is currently considered as a separate disorder; in the updated International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision adenomyosis is not included in the endometriosis section (GA10 Endometriosis), but allocated to a separate category (GA11 Adenomyosis). The development of the guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of adenomyosis by two organizations at once, the Asian Society of Endometriosis and Adenomyosis and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, in 2023 is an indirect evidence of that. Using dienogest 2 mg as monotherapy or dienogest-based combined oral contraceptives (for patients in need of reliable contraception) is one of the most suitable options for the long-term effective adenomyosis symptom management.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.409
GPT teacher head0.676
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical review for general practiceSame topicResearch in Social SciencesFrench-language works237,207