Electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing versus conventional clamping and suturing for total abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized trial.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of bipolar vessel sealing versus conventional clamping and suturing in women undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was performed. Patients were randomized to vessel sealing or conventional surgery. Postoperative pain was the primary outcome. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Two Dutch teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 57 women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy for benign conditions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the first 3 postoperative days, patients operated on using vessel sealing had statistically significantly lower pain scores. The amount of blood loss, surgery time, complication risk, and duration of hospitalization were similar between both groups. Patients in the vessel-sealing group resumed their normal daily activities on average 8 days earlier as compared with the conventional group. Postoperative pelvic floor function was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: The use of vessel sealing during abdominal hysterectomy for benign conditions appears to be associated with reduced postoperative pain and faster recovery.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it