Clinical practice guidelines for the primary care management of menorrhagia with no known pathology/dysfunctional uterine bleeding in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a diagnosis of exclusion, dysfunctional uterine bleeding can only be diagnosed in the absence of a pathologic explanation and therefore requires investigation.However, the degree to which investigations are attempted prior to referral to gynaecology varied greatly between primary care practitioners.The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba report that there are only 61 Obstetrician-Gynaecologists practicing in Manitoba in 2006.Thus limiting gynaecologists available to accept referrals from family practice, and impacting the waiting times.The Fraser lnstitute reported an average waiting time in Manitoba of 7.7 weeks for a referral to a gynaecologist in 2005, and an additional 7.1 weeks for treatment from the gynaecologist, totalling a 14.8-week wait for patients from time of referral to a gynaecologist to treatment.Through clinical experience in 2002, waiting lists were closer to 6-8 months in Manitoba.It was also through personal clinical experience that it became evident that there were no clinical guidelines accepted in Manitoba for the primary care management of Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding.Therefore, a literature search was performed of clinical practice guidelines for the management of Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding and after critiquing each, the recommendations were compiled to create one Clinical Practice Guideline relevant to the primary care management of Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding in Manitoba.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".