MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7070689399

Practice Patterns and Long-term Health Outcomes of Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy at Benign Hysterectomy

2021· dissertation· W7070689399 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsHysterectomyPropensity score matchingLogistic regressionOdds ratioObservational studyOddsAdverse effectCancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is offered at the time of benign hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer later in life. However, BSO results in the cessation of ovarian hormone production and may be harmful to long-term health. If BSO is associated with adverse outcomes, then understanding variation in surgeon practice will help identify targets for knowledge translation and quality improvement. Methods: We performed three population-based observational studies of women undergoing benign hysterectomy in Ontario, Canada, using linked administrative databases held at ICES. We used mixed logistic regression modelling to describe between-surgeon variation in BSO; overlap propensity score weighted survival modelling to determine whether BSO was associated with all-cause and cause-specific death; and inverse probability of treatment weighted survival modelling to quantify the risk reduction in ovarian cancer associated with BSO. Results: Rates of BSO at benign hysterectomy varied markedly between surgeons even after adjusting for patient case-mix, and the surgeon providing care was one of the strongest factors influencing whether patients underwent BSO (median odds ratio 2.10, 2.49, 2.84, 2.00 in 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 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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments→French-language works237,207→