MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7155049799 · doi:10.26262/heal.auth.ir.371967

Endometrial hyperplasia. Comparative review of guidelines

2025· article· en· W7155049799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Γεώργιος Μ. Καπετάνιος

Bibliographic record

VenueAristotle University of Thessaloniki · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometrial cancerHysterectomyEndometrial hyperplasiaAtypiaEndometrial biopsyPublic healthMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometrial hyperplasia, presenting without atypia (EH) or as atypical hyperplasia (AH), is considered a precursor of endometrial cancer and affects women of reproductive or perimenopausal age, posing as a major public health concern. The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published influential guidelines providing recommendations on the management of endometrial hyperplasia. Thus, a comparative review of guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was conducted. There is a consensus regarding the optimal management strategies for EH, with observation and medical treatment being the first line options and surgical treatment with total hysterectomy posing as second-line in specific cases. Moreover, there is agreement regarding patients with AH, with surgical treatment being the recommended approach, while medical therapy preferred for women who wish fertility preservation. Notably, close surveillance with endometrial biopsies every 3 or 6 months is suggested unanimously, as well as long-term follow-up in high-risk patients. Controversy exists regarding the initial diagnostic approach, with RCOG and SOGC suggesting outpatient endometrial biopsy, while ACOG recommending diagnostic hysteroscopy, as well as on the therapeutic regimens for the oral treatment of EH. Surgical techniques such as endometrial ablation, intraoperative frozen section analysis, intraoperative visual inspection of the uterus and morcellation constitute areas of controversy among the reviewed guidelines and the surveillance protocols for women with EH are addressed differently between RCOG and SOGC. Notably, RCOG is the only medical society offering recommendations regarding women under HRT and those on therapy for breast cancer. The development of consistent international practice protocols for the timely management strategies and surveillance protocols is of paramount importance to safely guide clinical practice and subsequently improve women’s health.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0220.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAristotle University of ThessalonikiSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207