MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096835958

COMMENTARY Vaginal Hysterectomy: Dispelling the Myths

2015· article· en· W7096835958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHysterectomyGuidelineAbdominal hysterectomyClinical PracticeMythology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite advances in minimally invasive surgery, most hysterectomies are still performed by laparotomy. The ratio of abdominal to vaginal hysterectomies ranges from 1:1 to 6:1 across North America, and in Canada is approximately 3:1. The SOGC clinical practice guideline on hysterectomy states that the vaginal route should be considered for every hysterectomy; if it is assumed that most surgeons would try to follow accepted guidelines, vaginal hysterectomy is presumably being considered and excluded. The evidence is compelling that vaginal hysterectomy is the approach of choice for benign pathology. The cited contraindications to vaginal hysterectomy are often unsubstantiated. In this commentary we examine the four reasons most often cited for avoiding a vaginal hysterectomy: (1) uterine

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0250.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUterine Myomas and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207