WOMEN'S HEALTH A Canadian, Multicentre Study Comparing the Efficacy of a Levonorgestrel-releasing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) compared with a combined oral contraceptive containing 1 mg norethindrone acetate and 20 g ethinyl estradiol (OC1/20) in reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women with idiopathic menorrhagia. Methods: A prospective, randomized, open-label study was conducted in nine centres in Canada. Healthy women over 30 years of age suffering from idiopathic menorrhagia were treated either with LNG-IUS (n = 20) or with OC1/20 (n = 19) over 12 months. The primary endpoint was the change in MBL from baseline to 12 months. Secondary endpoints included treatment success (defined as a MBL score < 100 after 12 months), hemoglobin levels, and the menorrhagia severity score. Results: In both treatment groups, MBL decreased significantly from baseline to 12 months (P < 0.001). For the primary endpoint, the MBL score decreased significantly more in the LNG-IUS group (median from 228 to 13, mean percent change–83%) compared to the OC1/20 group (median from 290 to 72; mean percent change–68%) (P = 0.002) after 12 months. In the LNG-IUS group, 80 % of subjects had treatment success compared with 36.8 % in the OC1/20 group (P < 0.009). Both treatments increased hemoglobin concentrations significantly between baseline and 12 months. The menorrhagia severity score was consistently lower in the LNG-IUS group at all study time points and was significantly lower (P = 0.045) at six months. Both treatments were well tolerated. Conclusion: Both the LNG-IUS and the combined oral contraceptive effectively decreased menstrual blood loss in women with idiopathic menorrhagia. The overall clinical benefit was more pronounced with LNG-IUS than with OC1/20. Résumé
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".