Iperplasia atipica e progressione a carcinoma endometriale nelle donne in postmenopausa: uno studio prospettico osservazionale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: assessing the rationale for endometrial resection as exclusive therapy in atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). Study design: A prospective monocentric observational study (Canadian Task Force Design Classification II-2) from performed from January 2000 to March 2023, including 49 patients with histologically proven endometrial AHE. Initial diagnosis was retrieved by histological assessment of endometrial samples collected during office hysteroscopy. Patients all underwent transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) and in those with confirmed diagnosis, but that refused hysterectomy or progestin therapy as first line therapy, were asked to accept a follow up consisting of endometrial cavity assessment by transvaginal ultrasound and hysteroscopy at 3, 6 and 12 months after TCRE, and then yearly, with endometrial biopsies performed by hysteroscopy. Results: after TCRE, endometrial cancer (EC) was detected in 19 out of 49 patients, that accepted to be treated by hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (HBSO). In the remaining 30 women, AEH was the unique endometrial lesion retrieved: they refused treatment and therefore were followed as above mentioned. All the patients progressed into EC after a follow-up period ranging from 6 to 84 months, when they finally accepted surgical therapy. Conclusion: in post-menopausal women AEH ever progresses to cancer in a time longer that the 24 months follow up recommended
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".