SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To formulate clinical recommendations for the assessment of endometrial thickening when it is found on ultrasound in a postmenopausal patient without bleeding. Outcomes: Ensure that women with asymptomatic thickening and endometrial polyps found on ultrasound are managed appropriately. Evidence: Published literature was retrieved through searches of English language articles from the EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed databases for relevant peer-reviewed articles dating from 1970 to 2009, using appropriate controlled vocabulary (e.g., “asymptomatic endometrial thickness, ” “endometrial cancer, ” “postmenopausal bleeding, ” “transvaginal ultrasonography, ” “endometrial biopsy” and “endometrial polyp”). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to April 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. Values: The level of evidence was determined according to the criteria established by the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care (Table). Recommendations are ranked according to this method. Benefits, harms, and costs: It is anticipated that the adoption of these recommendations would save postmenopausal women unnecessary anxiety, pain, and risk of procedural complication. It is also expected to decrease the cost to the health system by eliminating unnecessary interventions. Key Words: Asymptomatic endometrial thickening, asymptomatic endometrial polyp, endometrial cancer, transvaginal ultrasonography,
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 | 0.020 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.028 |
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".