Hysteroscopic evaluation of menopausal women with endometrial thickness of 4 mm or more.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study objective: To assess the diagnostic and operative potential of hysteroscopy in postmenopausal patients selected by ultrasound criteria. \n \nDesign: Cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). \n \nSetting: Outpatient ultrasound and hysteroscopy department of a university-affiliated hospital. \n \nPatients: One hundred fifty-five postmenopausal women with endometrial thickness of 4 mm or more by ultrasound, in menopause for at least 1 year, with or without menopausal complaints. \n \nInterventions: Transvaginal ultrasound and office hysteroscopy with eye-directed biopsy specimens using a 5-mm, continuous-flow, operative hysteroscope. \n \nMeasurements and main results: Of the 155 women, 129 (83%) were asymptomatic (irregular bleeding). Hysteroscopy showed endometrial pathology in 28% of asymptomatic patients (23 polyps, 5 cases of hyperplasia, 8 submucous myomata) and 76% of symptomatic women (13 polyps, 6 hyperplasia, 1 submucous myoma). Hysteroscopic results compared with histologic diagnosis showed a positive predictive value equal to 97. 1% and 95% in asymptomatic and symptomatic women, respectively, and a negative predictive value equal to 100% in both groups. \n \nConclusion: Office hysteroscopy with endometrial biopsy samples has a diagnostic and operative role in postmenopausal patients selected based on endometrial thickness on ultrasound, in view of the high prevalence of endometrial pathology in both symptomatic and asymptomatic women.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".